About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Is It Fair to Ask Chelsea Clinton About Lewinsky?

While campaigning Tuesday at Butler University in Indianapolis, Chelsea Clinton was asked if she thought her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal:

This raises an interesting question: Considering her active involvement in her mother's campaign, is it fair game to ask Chelsea Clinton about the Lewinsky scandal? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

MORE: This morning on "The Early Show," Harry Smith interviewed Evan Strange, the Butler University student who asked Chelsea about Lewinsky. This clip also features The Post's Sally Quinn talking about the Lewinsky question:

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  March 26, 2008; 10:22 AM ET Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Congressional Candidates, Generals Unite to Present Iraq Exit Plans | Next: Minnesota's Senate Race On Camera

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Why question the obvious? Hillary Clinton's credability has been "questionable" before and since, it is not limited to just one incident anymore than Bill Clinton's infidelity is limited to just one incident.

Posted by: Will | March 26, 2008 10:32 AM

NO

Posted by: linda | March 26, 2008 10:33 AM

That sort of question is really very poor form. I cannot begin to imagine how anything Chelsea Clinton could say on the matter would be relevant to voters.

Posted by: d.mccullough | March 26, 2008 10:33 AM

totally bad news........sounds like a repub/obama remark!

Posted by: maj | March 26, 2008 10:38 AM


Chelsea Clinton is campaigning vigorously as a surrogate for her mother. Therefore any questions regarding Senator Clinton's credibility, experience, opinions and character are fair game. If Ms. Clinton is not prepared to field such questions (or to be interviewed by the press) then she should not campaign for her mother.

Posted by: dee5 | March 26, 2008 10:40 AM

No. Why does anyone have to ask that question? Is there something new to learn? Is this something we need to know? It's clearly just to dredge up old dirt. I thought it was great that Chelsea answered the way she did.

Posted by: Dee | March 26, 2008 10:45 AM

No. Why does anyone have to ask that question? Is there something new to learn? Is this something we need to know? It's clearly just to dredge up old dirt. I thought it was great that Chelsea answered the way she did.

Posted by: Dee | March 26, 2008 10:46 AM

That would be like asking her how she feels about John McCain's joke invoking Janet Reno as Chelsea's mother.

It must be so hard for her to have a Dad like Bill and a mom who refused to stop the humiliation of her own daughter by divorcing the swine. I imagine she would like to be honest, but it must be so creepy having parents who lie so relentlessly.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 26, 2008 10:46 AM

Is it fair game to ask Chelsea Clinton about the Lewinsky scandal?

No, not at all.

The question assumes Hillary Clinton is responsible for her husband's behavior. Why is her credibility contingent on Bill's failure to keep his pants zipped? And it's unclear what actions the question refers to.

If Evan Strange wanted to give Chelsea the opportunity to show "what makes Hillary so strong," he could have asked her precisely that question.

In the meantime, he should work on improving his reporting skills.

Posted by: cab91 | March 26, 2008 10:53 AM

This is not about where Bill's johnson was, it is about lies, lies and more lies. His Impeachment heavily contributed to the ascendancy of Bush and this war.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 26, 2008 10:59 AM

Yes,it is fair.

Posted by: Phil Kelley | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Yes,it is fair.

Posted by: Phil Kelley | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Yes,it is fair.

Posted by: Phil Kelley | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Yes,it is fair.

Posted by: Phil Kelley | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Yes,it is fair.

Posted by: Phil Kelley | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Of course it is fair game. Chelsea is not the little girl that was living in the White House when her dad was President. She's a grown, 29-year old, professional woman who's campaigning for her mother for President.

While the question was in poor taste or maybe poorly phrased, it's legitimate to ask about her mother's credibility or lack there of.

Posted by: o. v. wong | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Gee...I guess Obama's girls are fair game also.A child SHOULD NOT have to take responsibilty for her parents.Ask his daughters why their father was into drugs or why they feel it neccessary to go to a church that hates white Americans????They are old enough to be on Larry King for display so they are old enough to answer questions.

Posted by: ggranny21 | March 26, 2008 11:13 AM

I absolutely loved Chelsea Clinton's response to the question!

While he may have had a right to ask a question like this, it was great getting an honest response from Chelsea.

It was a gutter question tho - certainly he could have come up with something a little more thoughtful.

Posted by: Deb | March 26, 2008 11:18 AM

I absolutely loved Chelsea Clinton's response to the question!

While he may have had a right to ask a question like this, it was great seeing Chelsea respond in the manner she did.

It was a gutter question tho - certainly he could have come up with something a little more thoughtful.

Posted by: Deb | March 26, 2008 11:19 AM

I thought the Oral B commercial made more sense...

Posted by: Terry - UK | March 26, 2008 11:22 AM

Chelsea reminds me of her mother. The press treats her with kid gloves, but she is a 27 years-old grown woman. Obviously, she can just answer the question. She mentions that her campaigning at the 70 other universities didn't prompt the Lewinsky scandal so why here? Well, her mother's papers weren't made available until recently. Now, if she's old enough to campaign for her mother, she's old enough to answer any question. She's old enough to belittle President George Bush while campaigning. She reminded me of her mother by her attacking the person who asks the question and putting them on the defensive, but she goes one step farther and attacks the very institution itself. She's a Clinton through and through and fully coached by her parents.

Posted by: MominCT | March 26, 2008 11:31 AM

This would have been a better question to ask Hillary: What did you know and when did you know it? After all, logs show she was in the White House at the time. Hard to believe that she didn't know it. Are there key holes in the Oval Office?

Posted by: Ken McGee | March 26, 2008 11:33 AM

The question that should have been asked was what she recalls about Tuzla and if she was with her mom any of the three previous times when the story about the sniper fire was told before the tape brought out the truth. It would be a prime example of the old Dragnet line of "Just the Facts Mam". That might be a good question for her mom too.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | March 26, 2008 11:40 AM

I think the critical issues for most voters are the personality and temperment of the candidate. Why shouldn't we scrutinize the couple we let into the White House. Bill and Hillary's actual deeds are not fair game? Her reactions to a crisis do not deserve scrutiny? The possibility of a repeat performance is not on our minds?

I went to law school at Yale with the Clintons, 1970-73. I campaigned for them in '92. Now, I support Obama.

I don't want the old circus back in town.

Posted by: DR Cal | March 26, 2008 11:45 AM

I think the critical issues for most voters are the personality and temperment of the candidate. Why shouldn't we scrutinize the couple we let into the White House. Bill and Hillary's actual deeds are not fair game? Her reactions to a crisis do not deserve scrutiny? The possibility of a repeat performance is not on our minds?

I went to law school at Yale with the Clintons, 1970-73. I campaigned for them in '92. Now, I support Obama.

I don't want the old circus back in town.

Posted by: DR Cal | March 26, 2008 11:45 AM

A very mean-spirited kind of question to ask of a son or daughter

Good response

Posted by: Taylor | March 26, 2008 11:47 AM

Chelsea who was a model child is now being expected to answer aggressive and personal questions about her parent's marriage and anything else.

The first twins who have publicly drank underage and been caught lap dancing continue to sail on through life untroubled with questions about their parent's marriage or their own lifestyle.

Message sent by all the double standard? Do well and get punished. Act like a twit and be rewarded.

Posted by: jan | March 26, 2008 11:56 AM

Saying such questions are off-limits with Chelsea is basically allowing the mom to hide behind the daughter.

What Hillary needs to do is be more transparent, not less, and as long as Chelsea serves as a proxy for her mom, it's fair to ask her the same questions people would ask Hillary.

Chelsea's a big girl now, she can handle it.

Posted by: Brad | March 26, 2008 12:01 PM

Perhaps the question is fair in the sense that this is about politics where all is fair, but it is also crass, crude, coarse and tasteless and reflects more on the bad manners of the questioner than it does on the character of the candidate. It was a question designed to embarrass Chelsea, not to learn something that might help us evaluate her mother's candidacy for President.

Posted by: Chesterfield1 | March 26, 2008 12:08 PM

But what you fail to recognize is that the First Twins are not campaigning for their mother's election to the highest office in our country. Chelsea has put herself in a position to be asked those types of questions by virtue of her position as campaign surrogate for her mother.

Posted by: ml88 | March 26, 2008 12:08 PM

Yes. Perfectly legitimate. She's out there now. She has to face the heat. Courtesy has nothing to do with it. Real world politics is real world politics.

That being said, Chelsea came up with a very strong political response. The Clinton campaign has to be delighted with it.

Posted by: max | March 26, 2008 12:13 PM

It seems it is just as "crass, crude, coarse and tasteless" to ask Chelsea this question as it would be to ask Obama's children or McCain's children if their parents had had any affairs.

Let's get to issues.

Posted by: Jones | March 26, 2008 12:16 PM

When Bill Clinton's Lewinsky problem first broke, Hillary blamed it on a "vast right wing conspiracy." But six months later, Bill fessed up to the country and supposedly to Hillary for the first time. It's beyond belief that Hillary didn't know that horndog Bill "had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" until the day he testified to the grand jury.

It's entirely legitimate to ask Hillary, Bill, Chelsea or anyone else in their campaign about Hillary's credibility in this matter which resulted in the impeachment of a president and Al Gore's unfortunate defeat.

Posted by: louise | March 26, 2008 12:17 PM

You can bet the first twins were doing it when their father was running for office. If you think they got caught their first time out, you're dreaming. Like I said. Double standard and bad message to our kids all rolled in one.

I'll go further. Hillary wasn't guilty of cheating on Bill but she might as well have been according to that questioner whose motives should be highly suspect, his statement notwithstanding.

Posted by: jan | March 26, 2008 12:23 PM

Do we want a president whose spouse is running around? It's fair to ask any member of the campaign anything that will help the voters choose a president.

Posted by: CC | March 26, 2008 12:27 PM

louise ..you are one hatefull individual...Did your husband pull the same trick on you...just blame your daughter.I have seen your posts on different things and always blaming someone.Thast does alot of good to get to the issues.We still don't know to what extent Obama's drug use went or how about his sexual desires,do you know personally???

Posted by: ggranny21 | March 26, 2008 12:31 PM

Well, obviously it's fair, but that doesn't make it tasteful or appropriate.

Posted by: squintz | March 26, 2008 12:32 PM

I think, based on the situation, it is. If she were not playing such a role in her mother's campaign, then such questions would be off limits. However, earlier in the campaign Chelsea got to go about, making speeches for Hillary, but NOT be interviewed by the press for privacy reasons. It doesn't work that way! She is someone endorsing Hillary, and therefore must be held to the same standards. She's not a minor anymore; she should be held as accountable as Bill.

Therefore, she'd better learn to address all situations, even the embarrassing ones, if she wants to put herself in the limelight.

Posted by: Chris | March 26, 2008 12:36 PM

It is never tasteful to ask a child about their parents infidelity or indescritions. That is common sense. It does not need a blog and validation from people.

To the Obama people I say, what goes around can come around. What if someone asked Malia or Sasha - what they thought of their dad's cocain snorting?

Posted by: Navin | March 26, 2008 12:37 PM

It is never tasteful to ask a child about their parents infidelity or indescritions. That is common sense. It does not need a blog and validation from people.

To the Obama people I say, what goes around can come around. What if someone asked Malia or Sasha - what they thought of their dad's cocain snorting?

Posted by: Navin | March 26, 2008 12:37 PM

The question may have been in poor taste, but it appears the questioner was asking about HRC's credibility because she said it was a right wing conspiracy and of course never apologized.

I think the young man would have probably done better by starting with the Bosnia issue and the "right-wing conspiracy" without mentioning Lewinsky's name, to ask her HRC's credibility.

Posted by: Mia | March 26, 2008 12:38 PM

Yes, Chelsea Clinton is campaigning vigorously as a surrogate for her mother. Therefore any questions regarding Senator Clinton's credibility, experience, opinions and character are fair game. If Ms. Clinton is not prepared to field such questions (or to be interviewed by the press) then she should not campaign for her mother.

Posted by: Mimi | March 26, 2008 12:38 PM

Bill Clinton's sex life was, and should have remained, a private family matter.

Posted by: svreader | March 26, 2008 12:38 PM

I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but let's face it - Chelsea Clinton's feelings about the Lewinsky scandal have exactly jack squat to to with politics, and is frankly none of our business. Chelsea isn't Paris Hilton; she didn't sign up to be a tabloid star. Show her some respect and don't treat her like she did.

Posted by: Tristechan | March 26, 2008 12:39 PM

Bravo to Chelsea for her response to a completely inappropriate question. I may have my doubts about the Clintons, but there is one area where I am absolutely convinced of their integrity and authenticity -- the wonderful job they have done raising Chelsea. No child should ever have to answer for their parent's sexual transgression. Her response: "It's NONE of your business," shows Chelsea has guts.

Posted by: Jessica Schreiber | March 26, 2008 12:39 PM

She is a big girl now, yes, it was fair. If she is able to handle.. promoting her mother.. she should be prepared to handle anything that comes her way. Thats the way of politics, all down and dirty and disrepectful, no matter who you are.

Posted by: Heidi Mo | March 26, 2008 12:39 PM

In a way, such a question wasnt appropriate HOWEVER,since Hillary wants to be truthful to the voters, then yes, it is fair. BUT being that Chelsea was educated in a prestigious la-di-dah school/college, she should have been more firm in responding that such issues in her opinion are not of essence for the future of America. Furthermore, she could have praised her mother for facing up in times of adversity with a brave face (or was it to remain married to Bill and remain a power couple?) Makes one wonder.

Anyway, long and short of it all, regardless of WHO the student supports/votes for, kitchen sink question right back at you Hill, so brave it, as she advised her opponent that Repubs are building more stuff should he win, haha!

Posted by: trups | March 26, 2008 12:40 PM

Yes, it's fair game to ask her that. It's also fair game for her to answer any way she likes.

Posted by: carilly | March 26, 2008 12:40 PM

Inappropriate to ask Chelsea. Great response, though. And although the media continues to generate non-news regarding the candidates (I feel like I am watching "The Apprentice") I think Hillary and Barack (and all their surrogates) need to keep their proverbial mouths closed and see what the media spends time reporting. Probably kittens falling to their deaths from third floor balconies.

Posted by: mandm | March 26, 2008 12:40 PM

YES. It is definitely a valid question. It was not personal. Bill Clinton used the oval office to abuse his power over an intern and then lied about it. That made it impossible for Democrats to win a presidential election for eight years! Just look at how disastrous that has been for us, and for the whole world! This family wants to campaign together and yet not be held responsible for what the most powerful member of the family has done? No, the next family member who wants the most powerful position in the world needs to face questions about her credibility, and if Chelsea wants to be a spokesperson, then she needs to answer the hard questions. Bill's lies were not just a personal matter. They affected millions, and really billions of people in the world. Answer the question Chelsea!

Posted by: Arjuna9 | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM

Ask her father Bill who put the whole family in a disgraceful incident! He should have thought about his family before he took up with Monica and the other ladies. He is the one who has no shame!

Sorry for Chelsea but ask your father the answer.

Posted by: Marge | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM

Ask her father Bill who put the whole family in a disgraceful incident! He should have thought about his family before he took up with Monica and the other ladies. He is the one who has no shame!

Sorry for Chelsea but ask your father the answer.

Posted by: Marge | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM

Ask her father Bill who put the whole family in a disgraceful incident! He should have thought about his family before he took up with Monica and the other ladies. He is the one who has no shame!

Sorry for Chelsea but ask your father the answer.

Posted by: Marge | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM

Ask her father Bill who put the whole family in a disgraceful incident! He should have thought about his family before he took up with Monica and the other ladies. He is the one who has no shame!

Sorry for Chelsea but ask your father the answer.

Posted by: Marge | March 26, 2008 12:42 PM

It may not be the best issue to illustrate Hillary Clinton's lack of credibility, but reporters have been WAY too easy on Chelsea. She gets treated like some type of celebrity endorser. She's an adult and she has chosen to enter the arena of political campaigning. Time to face some tough questions rather than receiving fluff pieces and photo opps. She's a Clinton interested in preserving Clinton power. Time to answer some tough questions.

Posted by: Jeremy | March 26, 2008 12:42 PM

Of course it's fair game. Politics is dirty. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. If she is going to step into the fray, she is going to get questions she likes and questions she doesn't like.

If the question had been something intimate regarding Monica (like "How did your mother feel when she found out", etc), that's different. I would say that's not a good question. This was not like that.

And, the guy asking the question is a supporter of her mother.

Posted by: Anthony | March 26, 2008 12:43 PM

In One Word.....NO

She is the innocent victim in that situation. Is it fair to involve someone's child about there parent's infedelity? NO
Imagine how painful it was for HER during that time. This is coming from a supporter of Mr. Obama. Stick to THE Issues.

That shhh is just insensitive.

Posted by: Mr. Wednesday | March 26, 2008 12:43 PM

Yes, up yours you filthy liberals

Posted by: jordan | March 26, 2008 12:43 PM

In One Word.....NO

She is the innocent victim in that situation. Is it fair to involve someone's child about there parent's infedelity? NO
Imagine how painful it was for HER during that time. This is coming from a supporter of Mr. Obama. Stick to THE Issues.

That shhh is just insensitive.

Posted by: Mr. Wednesday | March 26, 2008 12:43 PM

Uhm, what does "fair" have anything to do with anything given the current campaign environment. For the HRC campaign to cry "foul" over fairness would be nothing short of tardigrade.

Posted by: imokurok | March 26, 2008 12:43 PM

She's on the campaign trail, she is fair game. Their lives are and should be an open book to the public. The question might have stung, but inquiring minds want to know. Maybe she wasn't programmed properly ahead of time so she had no appropriate answer. But I agree with the others, she isn't a little kid anymore and she had better learn to deal with the realities of life and that includes her philandering father.

Posted by: cali | March 26, 2008 12:43 PM

Of course it's appropriate ... and like her mom & dad, she never bothered to answer the question.

Posted by: Charlie | March 26, 2008 12:44 PM

A good answer would have been, "No."

Posted by: frank burns | March 26, 2008 12:44 PM

You can be sure that her response was practiced. Her handlers have prepped her for just this type of question...and many many more. So, raise the bar. Find questions her handlers aren't prepped for! That would be REAL news.

Posted by: Marc | March 26, 2008 12:44 PM

While i am not a Hillary supporter to even ask Hillary about Monica to me is not important..it has no effect on how she would be president..so asking Chelsea is ridiculous..

Posted by: Michael F | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

Is the question fair and appropriate? No. Will people ask it? Yes, it appears. Chelsea is a big girl now and clearly very sharp and articulate. She should be prepared to respond to a question like this, and she was. Bravo.

Posted by: MW | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

It is relevant because Hillary blamed the right wing conspiracy even thought she new of her husband multiple infidelity instances.

Posted by: Gus | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

Questioning Hillary Clinton's credibility are fair, but they should be based on things Hillary Clinton has done, not on the basis of things her husband did. While she did stand by Bill, that is a very personal and difficult decision that she had to make during what had to be an extremely upsetting time. Her credibility should NOT be questioned on the basis of that. And more importantly, her daughter should not be expected to answer that question in the context of Monica Lewinsky and Bill. Chelsea's response was restrained but VERY appropriate!

Posted by: CJ | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

Yes. After all it didn't happen at Clintons House, it happed at Peoples house.

Posted by: Shan | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

Actually, a boring answer to a boring question. How is this news?

Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

If this question is fair:

1. Let's ask Carolyne Kennedy about JFK
2. Older Bush's daughter about his kept in watergate hotel
3. Ask FDR's decendents
4. Ask Lincoln's decendent
5. Ask Jefferson's decendents
6. Ask Washinton's decendents

Sex between consenting adults is no one else's business. And it was treated that way until Clinton.

Obama supporter better watch out for gay taxi sex vidoe. It may be his term soon.

Posted by: Seed of Change | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

Its a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. I hope the Clintons are not so naive to think this couldn't be an issue that people consider when voting. 'None of your business' is clearly an attempt to duck the issue. If you're going to go out and campaign for Hillary, you are going to have to deal with the baggage that comes with Bill.

Posted by: Dwayne | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM

The question was about her credibility and not the Monica Lewinsky affair and for someone running for office it was a very fair question.

I personally don't think it was a tough question at all. Her answer should have been a resounding NO. And if she felt like elaborating, there are many soundbites such as loyalty etc. that she could have included in the response.

Actually responding to the question would have probably also made it less of an issue than it is now.

Posted by: J | March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

It was a good question, the Clinton's have skirted around every Lie that they have told, when they are asked. Hillary will not answer a straight question with a straight answer. I want her put on a polygraph if she has nothing to hide. The Clinton's are the King/Queen of slime and attack they do one thing then accuse thier opponent of it to confuse everything and by then the damage is done even when they do wrong. She is getting a huge pass from the press and cant be trusted with anything, her "he's just a comedian" comment shows she feels she is above everyone and they and we are just the scum she rules.

Posted by: Jim | March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

Of course it's appropriate when she signed onto the campaign anything became fair game. Having said that, what do you think she is going to respond....do you really think she would give an exclusive expose'?

Posted by: Greg | March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

I thought it was a great response. At the end of the day those are still her parents and she's still their child. Classy kids at Butler!

Posted by: Elizabeth | March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

Chelsea is a grownup that is actively campaigning for her mom. Every question is valid, including those about Monica. Someone said that its like asking Obama's kids whether he had affairs... its not. They don't campaign for him and asking them randomly about this topic without evidence makes no sense.

I've had enough of the deceitful Clintons. They will do anything to achieve their aims.

Posted by: david z | March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

I think the fact that A) she was surprised by the question and B) that it never came up prior to this - show us how staged these events really are.

Posted by: jp | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

Mr. Wednesday: While I agree that campaigns should "stick to the issues", we'd need more than audacity of hope to believe even for a moment such delusions would come to pass in the upcoming weeks.

With this said, HRC put Chelsea on the campaign trail to advocate. As such, she's opened the door to such questions. If she didn't want her daughter to be subject to such inquiries, don't stick her on surrogate duty. Period. Paragraph.

Posted by: imokurok | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

Yes, it is fair because the Clintons have sent Chelsea out to be a surrogate.

Questions about Hillary's credibility are exactly what is needed now. The woman is a serial liar.

The fundamental problem with Clinton supporters is the refusal to believe the rules apply to Hillary.

Let's join together to move this country forward, and not backward into the divisive and hateful politics of the Bush/Clinton past.

Posted by: Not_THAT_Woman | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

It's completely ridiculous that she doesn't see fit to answer this question. She campaigns the country telling americans that she played a big role during her husbands term in office. Well this was a big issue during his last years, so I think this is a question worth answering seeing. Dodging a question about your father's, the president's, affair can only serve to hurt her credibility even more.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

Have we become so politically cynical that any amount of nastiness is OK and acceptable. By all that is decent, this should not have been asked. This has to be one of the most traumatic things to happen to this person.

Is Hillary's lack of character and credibility and HUUUUGE issue? YES! Absolutely and it is a reason to vote for Barack, which I am in favor of, but do not use the cynicism that anything goes in politics to justify anything goes or you are as bad as Rove, and yes now Hillary.

SHAMEFUL

Posted by: Mike in Sac | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

WOW!.....Why hasn't anyone asked Obama why he stayed a student of anti-american preachings for 20 years? And why is it so bad for her to have stuck by Bill's side after what he did? You would think most humans might be able to understand this better than anti-white gospel. Where did all the smart Americans go?

Posted by: Americano805 | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

Fairness issues aside, the question seems completely irrelevant to Hilary's credibility and competence as a candidate.

Posted by: AF | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

This was some Obama plant. His campaign has gone deeply, meanly and personally insultingly negative on Clinton every since the Rev. Wright video started to get heavy play.

What is the upstart black male version of Tonya Harding? Maybe the closest fit is Scarface and his gang.

Posted by: AsperGirl | March 26, 2008 12:48 PM

I think the fact that A) she was surprised by the question and B) that Monica questions never showed up prior to this - indicates to us how staged these events really are.

Posted by: jp | March 26, 2008 12:48 PM

Not only was it not fair or right - it was a classless question more worthy of a sleazy tabloid - though these days is there really a difference between news medias and tabloids - all we really get are re-drafts of official statements and then tabloid-like news - in other words no reporting worth reading.

Chelsea's response showed maturity, style, class and intelligence - all of which her questioner lacked.

Posted by: Katy | March 26, 2008 12:49 PM

Her mother is campaigning for President of the United States...there is no question that is off limits. She refuses to speak to the press and if she does, tries to dictate what is asked. Typical Clinton. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Posted by: Lou | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM

Chelsea stepped into the politcal marsh of her own freewill or that of her mother. So she has to expect any and all questions.

Posted by: Randall Watson | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM

Her mother is campaigning for President of the United States...there is no question that is off limits. She refuses to speak to the press and if she does, tries to dictate what is asked. Typical Clinton. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Posted by: Lou | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM

Sure it is, this is a grown women. Hillary is putting herself in the public spot light by running for President and Chelsea is campaigning for her.

Posted by: Rob | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM

Smutty question. Irrelevant and designed to cause personal hurt. Amazing the measures some use to judge presidential candidates.

Posted by: Julia H Riley | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM

Good points made by Louise.

What strikes me about Chelsea's response is that she seems to fail to understand the focus of the question. She was asked about potential damage to her mother's credibility. This is certainly the business of voters, an extremely important factor in electing a candidate.

I think once Chelsea heard "Lewinsky" she immediately went into attack mode instead of actually listening to the question and delivering a more thoughtful response. Her response shows how she interpreted the question far more personally than it was intended.

If she's not comfortable addressing any issue related to her parents she shouldn't campaign. She can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Agatha | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM

I think the credibility of American Democracy is what is at stake here. The media circus has completely turned the election into a joke. I don't understand how the majority of what is considered news is relevant at all to this election or those involved.

Posted by: Josh | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM

Questioning Hillary Clinton's credibility is fair, but the questions should be based on things Hillary Clinton has done, not on the basis of things her husband did. While she did stand by Bill, that is a very personal and difficult decision that she had to make during what had to be an extremely upsetting time. Her credibility should NOT be questioned on the basis of that. And more importantly, her daughter should not be expected to answer that question in the context of Monica Lewinsky and Bill. Chelsea's response was restrained but VERY appropriate!

Posted by: CJ | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM

Sure it's fair. It's also fair if she answers the way she did. And also, I find it strange that CBS did not include the audience's reaction when Chelsea told the man to mind his own business. Typical media bias against Hillary Clinton. Shame on you, CBS!

Posted by: Peter Bond | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM

I think the question was legit. It was a question about how she feels about her mother's creditibility - which should be an issue about a possible next president. He wasn't asking Chelsea what her personal opinions/feelings were about the Monica scandal or how it affected her personally. I think many in this country believe Hillary's credibility was damaged by remaining with Bill...some even say she stayed simply for her own personal political gain.

Just this week, in reference to Obama's pastor, Hillary said Obama could choose his pastor (and that she would not choose him as her pastor). I believe this statement completely opens the door to questions about her credibility having do with Bill's affair. Did she not have the choice to leave Bill?

Posted by: Colorado | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM

How would you feel if it were your daughter being asked about your sins? Ask Bill, if you want, it's his karma, but leave Hillary and Chelsea out of it-they're just victims of Bill's misbehavior. If you put them on the spot, then it is you victimizing them-and you become as guilty as Bill. This is not a partisan issue-it's a human decency issue. I wouldn't ask Bush's daughters about their father's being AWOL, either.

I support the Tibetan people in their struggle for religious freedom and human rights

Posted by: Tim Dunn | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM

I think the question should have been phrased better. I do love Chelsea's answer "none of you business." loved it..lol. But Chelsea is 29 years old and won't talk to main stream media so it seems like she is afraid to answer tough questions or be put out there like Michelle Obama has.

Posted by: Yvette | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM

I think the question should have been phrased better. I do love Chelsea's answer "none of you business." loved it..lol. But Chelsea is 29 years old and won't talk to main stream media so it seems like she is afraid to answer tough questions or be put out there like Michelle Obama has.

Posted by: Yvette | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM

The question really is would someone in the national media ask Chelsea something like that.. it really isn't a question anyone should ask.. shows really bad taste on the asker and equally bad taste on the media for giving forum.

Posted by: Alan | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM

Yes, absolutely - anyone who decides to be a public surrogate has to be willing to accept the questions that will come. To say no is to give the Clintons an untouchable 'place' - and that simply isn't the way it is. Don't be naive.

The real question is why Chelsea's parents would be so self-serving that they would thrust their daughter into such an arena. If there is any possibility that it would humiliate their daughter - which of course there is more than a possibility - should they not be willing to shield her from that and keep her out of the public limelight? But this is not their way - they are so self-absorbed and ambitious that they don't care who it hurts. They'll probably blame this on the vast right wing conspiracy - or on Obama - but what they won't do is take ownership for putting their daughter in front of the firing line. They are pathetically shameless.

Posted by: mike k | March 26, 2008 12:52 PM

NO, NOT EVEN IF Chelsea is 100 years old.
Imagine someone asked obama's daughters about their father's private problem! REV Wright will definitely call it "lynch".
Shameful for this guy to pretend to be a Hillary supporter, where is his guts after asking such tasteless question?

Posted by: LL | March 26, 2008 12:52 PM

I think it's fair. As it should be fair to ask Obama about his past cocaine habits.

Posted by: Nick Demus | March 26, 2008 12:52 PM

Why not ask personal questions of Obama's children about their father? That would be fair.

Hillary invented danger, supposed to showcase bravery, instead it betrays guilt. Chelsea is no better at answering questions...

She is not the first woman to run for President. What happened to Shirley Chisholm?

Posted by: Orenthal James Simpson | March 26, 2008 12:52 PM

Yes it is a fair question and no she does not have to answer it. Oh, and I hope all these Republican Hillary bashers will come to a questioners defense when they start asking John McCain about when he exactly started his relationship with Cindy McCain. Oh wait, I think it was while he was still married to someone else.

Remember, fair is fair.

Posted by: Fairplay | March 26, 2008 12:53 PM

I think it`s ok since she is part of the campaign. I also think that it`s very rellivant considering Hillary is the one who wanted Bill to lie about it in the first place! Is this the kind of person we want running our country? Someone who will lie to cover up her husband cheating on her numerous times, just so it wouldn`t hurt her political image?!?

Posted by: kelso | March 26, 2008 12:53 PM

Never mind Lewinsky! Chelsea is a GROWN WOMAN for Pete sake! She is on the payroll like everyone else at the Clinton campaign. I found this video clip taken at a rally in Bloomington where Chelsea is also proving to be as good a liar as her parents are....makes me cringe to think that the US citizens are willing to even consider voting for someone so untrustworthy?? I think this link should be forwarded to every blog we can, 'till the media pick up on it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1747526671609434959&q=Chelsea+Clinton+in+Bloomington&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 26, 2008 12:53 PM

Chelsea sounds a lot like her mother - a weasel !

Posted by: bob reilly | March 26, 2008 12:53 PM

If you are going to campaign, you should prepare for tough question. That is one of those question,
Thanks,

Posted by: Reza | March 26, 2008 12:53 PM

Chelsea, should have asked him something very nasty about his parents. The audience would have had a great laugh, I know I would have.

That would have taken care of that smart aleck questioner.

Posted by: Wjones | March 26, 2008 12:53 PM

Chelsea, should have asked him something very nasty about his parents. The audience would have had a great laugh, I know I would have.

That would have taken care of that smart aleck questioner.

Posted by: Wjones | March 26, 2008 12:53 PM

Don't ask Chelsea, ask Hillary! Why did she forgive Bill for lying to her and the nation? How do women stand by smiling while their husbands make a fool of them? Why did she stay in the marriage -- political gain??

Posted by: Herman | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM

She is stumping for mom, and pretty much any Q is fair in this 20-month, circus death march of a campaign.

The topic is tasteless, badgering and un-illuminating, however. Dredging it up reflects poorly on the the questioner. Ms. Clinton, handling it with such aplomb, elevated her own profile...perhaps (somehow) her mother's candidacy.

Posted by: skrunt | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM

Of course it's fair. The media has run the Rev. Wright through the mud with only a snippet of his sermon. Hilary comes under fire for her "sniper" lies and she immediately tries to change the subject and attack Obama with the Rev. Wright story just as it was losing momentum.

The Clintons do one thing consistently - they LIE. Chelsea is an adult now and kid gloves are no longer required. If she intends to campaign, she should be prepared for these questions. And Hilary should stop whining and hiding behind her daughter's skirts.

Posted by: Chi Lady | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM

The larger worry should be that Bill will potentially be the "first spouse" or whatever he would be called. If any of the other presidential candidates had spouses with his history....the candidate would be history. Why aren't we concerned whether Bill will be an appropriate "first spouse" to represent our country?

Posted by: rs | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM

In response to 'maj': why is every jerk move considered a "repub/obama" thing to do??? I'm sure there are nasty people who do/say nasty things in all political parties. Why the implication that Hillary is perfect ? Newsflash--that was one of her supporters to asked the question!

Posted by: AK | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM

If Chelsea were just out for a night of entertainment and someone asked her this question... it would be unfair. If she were presenting a business plan to a board and someone asked the question... unfair.

But here she is taking on the role of being her mother's representative, her factotum in many events, and by doing so she must wear the cloak both of her parents' achievements and their indiscretions. If she doesn't want to answer questions like that, she must not act as their representative.

Yes, it's not nice. It's crass. But what went on in the Clinton Administration was crass, as well. Like it or not, the entire family is being elected. Do you really expect Bill to sit back and NOT be involved in the administration if Hilary is elected? Come on... he's not that kind of guy. He showed that in his campaigning attempts for his wife.

So, the overall question of family stability, family credibility is definitely fair game. I'm sorry it's so, but it's the reality.

And to the person who mentioned the first twins: they weren't campaigning for GWB when those indiscretions occurred. GWB, stupid as he is, had better sense than to let that sort of thing happen.

Posted by: Tony | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM

QUESTION FOR CHELSEA


WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING IN IRAQ ???

Rather than campaigning for your mother, why, since you support Hillary, aren't you fighting in Iraq?

A SERIOUS QUESTION !

People like the Clintons think it's fine to vote for war, as long as other parents' children die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ ???

Posted by: Kevin | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM

Low class democrat asks question pointing out that Billary are a low class democrats. Daughter shows them all up.

Posted by: V Racer | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM

Chelsea Clinton is not a little girl anymore. She is a grown woman. She is a major player in her mother's campaign. It would have been a lot more appealing if she would have answered the question with a little more tack. She demonstrates something that seems to be a trait of the Clintons now that I can step back and see them for who they are. She demonstrated a sense of entitlement. I supported the Clintons for 8 years but looking back on the Clinton years, I can say they sold out lots of principled ideas that other great Americans had built up, all for the sake of staying in office. The Clintons had no real coattails. We lost the congress with them. It is that very sense of entitlement that we can now see was part of the problem.

Posted by: William | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM

Chelsea sounds a lot like her mother - a weasel !

Posted by: bob reilly | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM

I'd say the "unfair" part of it is for Hillary to put Chelsea in this position, and expect that nobody would ask her any tough questions.

Posted by: Allan | March 26, 2008 12:56 PM

Sure. If Chelsea wants to place herself in the "sniper fire" of her powermongering mother's campaign, everything is fair game.

The world looks at her mother with contempt given her non-stop "stand by my man" stance that is so transparent in its power locus.

Don't like it Chelsea? Then stay out of the campaign and watch change happen without the powermongering old bag in the way.

Posted by: Joop deBruin | March 26, 2008 12:56 PM

hillary yesterday stated that you have to stay with relatives, but you can leave a church. she did not mention that you can leave a husband. i have not heard anyone question her about why she chose to stay with bill, as opposed to all the questions to obama about his pastor.

Posted by: john | March 26, 2008 12:57 PM

hillary yesterday stated that you have to stay with relatives, but you can leave a church. she did not mention that you can leave a husband. i have not heard anyone question her about why she chose to stay with bill, as opposed to all the questions to obama about his pastor.

Posted by: john | March 26, 2008 12:57 PM

I don't feel it was appropriate and agree with her response. At the same time, I don't see what Obama's youthful drug experimentation (which most of if not all of the candidates have probably partaken in) should have anything to do with Bill Clinton screwing around on his wife. At least he didn't claim to snort but not get high, or to smoke up without inhaling...come on now!

Posted by: Obama Supporter | March 26, 2008 12:57 PM

The question was poorly worded - the question should have specfially been about Hillarys comments ragarding vast right wing conspiracy that was used by the hill.
Say anything even if you know it isn't true

Posted by: rex in pa | March 26, 2008 12:57 PM

It's just Unbelievable, how low the WashPost is going to get, you are asking if it's ok to ask a daughter what do you think about your father's afair ? hmmm

Posted by: Tony | March 26, 2008 12:57 PM

She needs to be prepared to handle the question, it isn;t going away. Given the gutter tone Hillary's campaign is adapting it would appear appropriate.
Yes it was a fair question to a candidates surrogate.

Posted by: dane | March 26, 2008 12:58 PM

No, it's not fair. It's not relevant either, at least not directly. What does how you are a spouse have to do with how you would be President of the United States? That any answer could give some insight into one's leadership capabilities is pretty shaky, so the weakly possible gains in asking this kind of question are way outweighed by the certain and unnecessary problems it causes.
Chelsea's reaction is surprising to me because surely she could have a ready answer prepared for the day that someone sinks to the occasion; but given how inappropriate the question is, I think she's free to react any way she wants. Now please just do the honorable thing and leave her alone about it! Geez, the way kids are exploited in this country! I don't care how old she is now.

Posted by: vashti | March 26, 2008 12:58 PM

She needs to be prepared to handle the question, it isn;t going away. Given the gutter tone Hillary's campaign is adapting it would appear appropriate.
Yes it was a fair question to a candidates surrogate.

Posted by: dane | March 26, 2008 12:58 PM

CC as proxy for HRC, is obligated to address any and all questions from her audience as well as those from the press, she always has the option of not stomping for her mother. As mentioned, prior to the release of the highly redacted schedule, questions at issue would not have the same import as they now do. We now know HRC was just a few doors down the hall from the President doing his deeds. Do we want a president that is so blind to events around her?

Posted by: Starry Perdun | March 26, 2008 12:59 PM

Absolutely. Her mother is a pandering liar who will say and do ANYTHING to grab the nomination, despite the fact that no man in this country will voter for her in November. If Hillary is going to 'pimp' her daughter out, then all questions are fair game.

Posted by: Chris Troy | March 26, 2008 12:59 PM

No child should be asked about his or her parents' affairs. Chelsea may be an adult but that's still crossing a line. If she ever wishes to cross that line and speak about it, it should be her choice.

Not to mention it's about her father, NOT her mother.

Posted by: Rachel | March 26, 2008 12:59 PM

Maybe someone should ask her if her mom knows anything about Ron Brown.

Posted by: Mackenzie | March 26, 2008 1:00 PM

I like the old saying, if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen. If Chelsea is not up to answering questions, as long as they are factual and without profanity then she should not assume a role on the campaign trail for her mother or anyone else.

Posted by: stephanie | March 26, 2008 1:00 PM

Preachers, mistresses, grandmothers.... We've made it all fair game in this primary. Chelsea chose this path for herself and she has to suck it up and take the questions that are put out there. Please. Save the moral outrage for all the memory-challenged Clinton supporters who've conveniently forgotten NAFTA, the war, and the fact that Hilary was a first lady for eight years, not a president.

Posted by: BooHoo | March 26, 2008 1:01 PM

This is what American "Democracy" is about. While people sleep in the streets and are unable to heat their homes, while floods ravage cities and our people die to protect corporate profits we solemnly discuss whether it's "fair" to ask Chelsea Clinton about her father's infidelity. Personally I don't give a damn what you ask her.

Posted by: Don Hendriks | March 26, 2008 1:02 PM

If she's going to campain for her mother then she should have to deal with any and all questions not just the ones that she wants to hear

Posted by: me | March 26, 2008 1:02 PM

Chelsea's making 200,000.00 a year, working for a hedge fund. She's 29 years old. She's a big girl. So act like one.

Posted by: Sonjco | March 26, 2008 1:02 PM

Chelsea's answer does not make any sense. He asked a legitimate question concerning HRC's credibility in regard to her reaction to a very public White House scandal. Of course it's the public's business. Now the Clinton's would have preferred it to be private but since it isn't, it's fair game. Chelsea was obviously unprepared. And I'm still waiting for her answer.....

Posted by: beth | March 26, 2008 1:02 PM

I'd ask this question, "how do you like being pimped by your powermongering mother when it places you in the sniper fire of her campaign?" and "How do you feel about your mother's non-stop worship of power to the detriment of her party and America?"

Posted by: Joop deBruin | March 26, 2008 1:02 PM

i have no love for the Clintons but it's pretty inappropriate to ask a daughter about her dad cheating on her mom. Granted all sides have stooped low during the campaign but still...

Posted by: john | March 26, 2008 1:02 PM

Senator Clinton pretends having acquired "experience" : she or any adult campaigning for her should be honest enough to discuss that "experience" and its credibility, like the pretended "under fire" travel to Bosnia.
She has not the right to question others credibility while being immune to the questioning of hers.

Posted by: frenchreader | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM

Its fair to ask Obama about his pastor, so it is of course fair to ask Chels and her father and Hillary about her husband.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM

Talk about gutter politics - how low can they go! Evan Strange must be an Obama supporter.

Posted by: Anjisan | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM

The only reason for asking this question is to be vicious.

Hillary Clinton did the best she could with the information she had at the time. It turned out her husband didn't finally tell her the unvarnished truth until after her remarks about the vast right wing conspiracy - remarks that were 100% accurate as the facts are now a matter of record.

Posted by: Zeppa | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM

With Chelsea actively stumping for her mother, sure it is fair to ask her questions about virtually anything relating to Hillary Clinton as a possible president.

But at the end of the day it was a rather stupid question. The only credibility question I saw come out of the matter was about Bill, not Hillary.

Posted by: brendon | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM

QUOTE "No child should be asked about his or her parents' affairs. Chelsea may be an adult but that's still crossing a line. If she ever wishes to cross that line and speak about it, it should be her choice.

Not to mention it's about her father, NOT her mother."

---Actually the question is about her mother. It's about her mother's credibility in her decision to stay with a cheating husband. Of course the question would be better if given to Hillary, but Chelsea is a grown woman and a representative of the campaign...she shouldn't be so shocked to get these kinds of questions.

Posted by: Colorado | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM

Of course it's fair. Why not? By putting herself out there, she's going to be in the cross hairs regarding this issue, not just for the duration of this campaign, but FOREVER! She can thank her philandering 'fahter' who made a mockery of the Oval Office, then himself. I bet she doesn't 'bristle' when money is plunked down in front of her in the form of an advance for the book she'll write someday.

Posted by: Frozen Tundra | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM

Bill Clinton's sex life becomes a public matter when it happens in the Oval office.

Posted by: jake | March 26, 2008 1:04 PM

No. It is not a fair question, and it is a stupid quesion. Not to mention that the whole scandal was pretty stupid itself. First of all, why would that scandal do anything to Hillary's repuation? Second, what would her daughter be able to say about the subject. It's beyond me how we can focus on stupid little things that didn't really harm anyone in a large scale while the country has SERIOUS problems (economy, war, healthcare, etc) where people's life is in geopardy, and young men and women of our country are dying for a non-existant cause. I think it's time we STOP being a stupid nation, asking stupid questions from the wrong people, open up our eyes and have a good look at ourselves and our problems as a nation.

Posted by: mary | March 26, 2008 1:04 PM

Of course it is a legitimate question. Chelsea's campaigning will only hurt Hillary's chances of winning the nominiation, a chance that is diminishing daily.

Posted by: The Rodentman | March 26, 2008 1:04 PM

Why would anyone have to answer this question? Why would Hillary Clinton's credibility be on the line because her husband is a cad?

It's a simple gotcha question of the kind that the media loves and debases our politics and government.

Posted by: pish posh | March 26, 2008 1:04 PM

No it is NOT fair. That's pretty obvious. Next question!

Posted by: dml | March 26, 2008 1:04 PM

Sure it was fair. If by fair, you mean totally irrelevant to any actual campaign issues. The war, the economy, civil rights - these are issues. If you just want to play in the dirt for dirt's sake, then let's ask senator McCain's wife if marrying the woman with whom he cheated on his second wife shows good Presidential-type judgement on McCains.

Posted by: L. Sprague | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

And ppl should not compare Michelle Obama to Chelsea.. compare Michelle to Bill... go ask Bill and see how far that gets you.

Posted by: Alan | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

What in the world does the Lewinsky affair have to do with this campaign! Also the moron who asked the question is just as stupid as the some of the posters on this blog. The bottom feeders here are beyond contempt.

Posted by: jwalker | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

Here's a better question "Have run across a good stain removing tip?"

Posted by: Joop deBruin | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

Absolutely, it is fair! Hilary is basically being interviewed for a very important job, therefore a character witness (Chelsea) should answer questions. After all, a public figure who is involved in a situation that becomes scandalous, can't shy away from it. That's their past and the public is voting on the whole person, not just what they want us to see!

Posted by: Susan | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

if any person had ask my daughter that question i would have punshed their lights out people in this country have no moruals no scence of shame so i hope the lord has a place in heaven for you. DR CAL i would expect that from you you have no soul and thats the truth.there is money to be made from all this mud slinging but i can sleep well my house hold makes 39,000 a year with 6 kids i know love and my kids are spreading the love.may god bless

Posted by: TDH | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

Good grief, Chelsea is an adult and should be treated as such, and frankly her response was certainly not as polished as the media would lead you to believe, I found it quite childish. Regardless, the question was heartless.

In reality Chelsea was the wrong person to broach that subject with, it should have been directed toward Hillary. If she allows her husband to run roughshod over her, what assurances can she give the American people that she won't react in the same passive aggressive manner when we're being abused as a nation? Can she be trusted to face issues head on, nip things in the bud or will she put on blinders until things are out of hand and someone gets impeached?

Posted by: emilypost | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

Here's a better question "Have you run across a good stain removing tip that you would like to pass on to us?"

Posted by: Joop deBruin | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM

Political discourse continues on a downward spiral. I pity anyone who aspires to public office...you will be vilified for any and all of your personal transgressions, real or imagined. Back to the question at hand: Chelsea and her mother have certainly discussed the possibility of this kind of question being asked, and I'm sure that Chelsea had this answer scripted months ago. Don't feel sorry for her, or her family. Feel sorry for the ignorant Butler student who wasted an opportunity to ask a question that could have elicited some insight of substance and value. If that student was my child, I would be furious. I support Obama, by the way.

Posted by: slj | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

First - if she is on the campaign trail, stumping for her mom, any of her mom's actions, inaction or public persona is fair game; the Lewensky affair is public - and her mom has commented on it before. Chelsea is an adult - graduate of a prestegious college - she is not in elementary school. The fact that she is being "isolated" from tough questions (i.e. the press asking her) goes to show that they only want her to have the "soft ball" questions...nothing too taxing. A pro-Hillary democrat asked the question...it was legitimate.

Second - The question was one regarding the credibility of her mother, Hillary Clinton, not about Bill or the "sex" issues.

Third - Chelsea's response spoke volumns of her inability to "think". She did not listen to the question; she had an instantly emotional reaction to an unemotional question regarding her mother's credibility based on her mother's response to a public event that occured during the time she (Hillary) was first lady.

Forth - dodging the question the way she did was "pure Clinton" - to express outrage that anyone would dare ask a direct question about a sensitive (but legitimate) issue such as her mother's credibility - and then say it is not anyone's business as to her mother's credibility...really? I believe credibility and integrety are two cornerstone issues that need to be established for any presidential candidate...

Posted by: Tony | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

"Bill Clinton's sex life was, and should have remained, a private family matter.


Not if he lied under oath about it, as he did.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

I think it is about as tasteless as asking Obama's daughters to explain their father's motives in subjecting them to a hate-mongering, racist minister's sermons for the whole of their lives.

It was clearly calculated to humiliate Chelsea and get her off her game. I wish there was some way to measure how many votes a stunt like that garners for Hillary.

Posted by: JanetP | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

The Clinton Family's sexual lives have nothing to do with their credibility, nor does it affect their abilities to run this nation. Their is no appropriate answer to the question, therefore I believe that Chelsea brushed it off extremely well with truth and honesty.

Posted by: Brandon | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

I would say being on the board of walmart would discredit her enough on its own. This question should have been asked to Mrs. Clinton though. Asking her daughter about her mothers personal life is bad form. Chelsey cant control what or who her father does in his spare time away from Mrs. Clinton and im pretty sure she wouldnt want to think about it anyway. As she said "It's none of your business".

Posted by: J. Emerson | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

Credibility? She has none and if Chelsea is on the campaign trail - she should be ready to answer that type of question.

Posted by: Howie Feltersnach | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

It is a fair question. From informal talks with friends, I have found that the fact that Hillary stayed with Bill after the great embarrassment he subjected her to damaged her standing in men's eyes, but not with women. Personally, I'm still waiting for Hillary to apologize for the "right wing conspiracy" smear she expounded (before indisputable DNA evidence negated that).

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | March 26, 2008 1:07 PM

I don't find this question probative. Its nothing more than dirty politics. However, questioning Mrs. Clinton's comments on her Bosnia tarmac experience is a totally different story. I would like someone to ask Chelsea about her memory of that experience.

Posted by: Jeff | March 26, 2008 1:07 PM

Yes it is! Immorality runs rampart through the Clinton's family. The Monica Lewinski sex scandal, the Whitewater Real Estate scandal, the Impeachment of Bill Clinton are just a few of many moral issues that needs to be addressed. She is part of that family, and if she is going to campaign for anyone in that family, then she needs to address the issues. However, her response is proof positive that Bill and Hillary have taught her how to sidestep the issues. I'm sure that they have even taught her to lie when needed!

Posted by: AF Houston Texas | March 26, 2008 1:07 PM

Is It Fair to Ask Chelsea Clinton About Lewinsky?
Is It Fair to Bomb Serbia 1999. and kill 3500 people to hide a love affair and impeachment?
Americans, Stop hipocrisy.

Posted by: cox | March 26, 2008 1:07 PM

The fact that you could ask if the question is "fair" is an indication of how utterly journalism and politics have deteriorated in this country. Is it FAIR to ask a daughter about her father's sexual misbehavior? Of course it's not fair - it shows an appalling lack of "fairness," kindness, and simple good taste.

I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter - though I will certainly support her over John McCain should she win the nomination. However, I don't believe that anything Bill Clinton did inside or outside of his marriage has anything whatsoever to do with Hillary's fitness to be President. And to question her daughter about it is beyond the pale.

Posted by: B. D. Colen | March 26, 2008 1:08 PM

Yes, if you want to play with the grown-ups and your dad's a lying sack of crap and so is your mom, you have to answer the tough questions.

Posted by: bilbo | March 26, 2008 1:08 PM

Frankly I don't see what the Lewinsky issue has to do with Hillary Clinton's credibility at all. It may say something about Bill and Monica's credibility, but not a thing about Hillary's. I suppose any question is fair game in politics, but the question put to Chelsea was insensitive and irrelavent. Her response gave us a glimpse of a courageous young woman. Bravo Chelsea

Posted by: Fuddy | March 26, 2008 1:08 PM

NO!

Whether or not Chelsea is campaigning for her mother, any questions concerning the Monica Lewinsky affair should be directed to her father; not her or her mother.

Brenda Burke,
Edmonds, WA

Posted by: Brenda Burke | March 26, 2008 1:08 PM

Ms Clinton is functioning in a very high profile role for her mother. Consequently, part of her job is to be prepared for questions of all types. If the Clinton's are not wanting her to be exposed to these types of questions, then send her out of the public focus. It is not really very hard to figure this out.

Posted by: Thomas | March 26, 2008 1:09 PM

Of course it is fair game. Her mother is campaigning for the most powerful job in the known world and some questions are off limits? Are you kidding me? She should be lucky that the questions aren't more probing, as she is a face for her mother. Due to the nature of the job, EVERYONE should be due the same microscopic attention, regardless of political orientation.

Posted by: Jaime Harvey | March 26, 2008 1:09 PM

Tony - your remark "dodging the question the way she did was "pure Clinton" - to express outrage that anyone would dare ask a direct question about a sensitive (but legitimate) issue such as her mother's credibility - and then say it is not anyone's business as to her mother's credibility...really? "

Is spot on! We use the word Clinton in our home instead of LIE. "Don't try to pull a Clinton on me when you know you have homework to do!" The Clintons make Dick Nixon look like a paragon of moral clarity.

Posted by: Joop deBruin | March 26, 2008 1:09 PM

Of course it's acceptable to approach her on this subject. As an agent of the candidate, her mother, she surely must expect this sort of thing. She can thank her philandering 'father' for making a mockery of the Oval Office, as well as the Presidency and finally his family. I bet she doesn't bristle when large sums of money are plunked down in front of her in the form of an advance for the book she will write someday.

Posted by: Frozen Tundra | March 26, 2008 1:09 PM

Whoever post this has no brain and logic:

"Its fair to ask Obama about his pastor, so it is of course fair to ask Chels and her father and Hillary about her husband."

Unless you think REV Wright is running president and Obama is his son.

Americans you need to eat more fish, but no tuna.

Posted by: LL | March 26, 2008 1:09 PM

First of all, top quote a snippet of JFK, "Life isn't fair".

Chelsea is a woman now, having been born in 1980. She's reached the age of majority. She's decided to aid her mother in her quest for the hightest office of the land. As such, she should be open to all those things that fall to you along the campaign trail.

Suck it up baby! Life ain't fair! Take what you get and do the best you can with it.

Posted by: Michael DeBurgh | March 26, 2008 1:09 PM

People are missing the point. Chelsea is actively campaigning for her Hillary. It is immaterial wether Hillary is related to Chelsea. Chelsea is a spokesperson, and as such, should be prepared to answer any and all questions about her boss.

More importantly, the question and answer left this impression in my mind: It is none of our business wether the Lewinsky scandal damaged Hillary's credibility. So we are expected to elect a commander-in-chief who thinks her credibility is none of our business.

Wow. Arrogant communism at it's best.

Posted by: BlackHat72 | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM

3 cheers for Chelsea for her honest answer. This is supposed to be about electing a president not about the sex problems of a husband and wife that is none of our business.It should be how well they care for our country

Posted by: babs in ga. | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM

I know how it feels to be the daughter of a father who has had countless infidelities, and Ive grown, and Questions like that regarding it wouldn't hurt me like they used to. You begin to see your father for what he is, a man. I think she was trying to not talk about it because it would hurt her mothers rep.

Posted by: anon | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM

considering that chelsea has undertaken to campaign for hillary, it is appropriate to ask her anything any other clinton representatives might be asked. if chelsea hadn't taken the role of spokes person then it would clearly be out of order to bring up her fathers behavior. in that hill and bill are a package deal questions about bill's previous behavior are appropriate, especially in that bill not only didn't come clean but never apologized for the damage he did to the cause of those who supported him. in effect bill became ineffective as a president toward the end of his term. questions about will bill do something that will cause disruption to another clinton presidency are very on target. it's too bad that chelsea has to be exposed to them, but maybe bill should have thought of that before he had unsex with white house interns.

Posted by: peter falvey | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM

Of course this is a fair question. Chelsea's "none of your business' response is a sign that while the Clintons like to complain about the "politics of personal destruction" is unfair when directed to them, Hillary's campaign has no problem in dishing it out when she falls behind in the polls.

Posted by: Tom | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM

When i see answers like so many of the above I can only conclude that we Americans have so little charity and goodness in us. How could anyone condone such a crass question?

Posted by: J. OBrien | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM

Not a fan, but I think this is in poor taste at this point.

Posted by: todd | March 26, 2008 1:11 PM

Of course it's fair! Hillary and Bill are public figures who are therefore held to a higher standard of disclosure to the public. By stumping as a surrogate for her mom, Chelsea can be expected to answer questions relevant to her mom's desired job - the presidency of the UNITED STATES.

How is the question relevant? Because Bill got blown in the oval office, lied to the American people about it, and became the 2nd president ever to be impeached. And Hillary defended him the whole time, claiming the rumors were made up by the "vast, right-wing conspiracy." Relevant.

Posted by: Adam | March 26, 2008 1:11 PM

It's politics. If you want to play, you have to play by all the rules. Chelsea is campaigning, and everything is fair game.

There's one way and only one way that she can pick and choose what questions she will answer: do not actively campaign. Period. Answer questions or get out.

Posted by: Bob | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

If you want the spotlight, you get the spotlight!

Posted by: an american | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

All of this should not even be happening. Senator Clinton should have done the right thing for her party and dropped out already. The Republicans are laughing all the way to the White House.
After the fraud trials against the Clintons in California are finished and her own party forces her out of the race, she will wish that she had resigned.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

How a presidential candidate reacts in a crisis is definitely relevant to voters!

Posted by: bilbo | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

Well, it's politics; of course its fair game.
Of course, it's also fair game for Chelsea to answer the way she did, and, by extension, we as citizens in the democracy are then placed in position to judge Hillary as a candidate based on her public history and the responses of herself and those who campaign for her.

Posted by: jake | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

Totally irrelevant question obviously from someone in the religious right attempting to discredit Hilary. Monica Lewinsky has been and shall remain totally irrelevant. I could care less what consenting adults do. What does it have to do with anything?

Posted by: Bob | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

Mean-spirited is too polite a term for such poor judgement, and such poor journalism.

Quite frankly, where President Clinton put his johnson is none of anyone's business but his own. It was an inappropriate question to ask from the very beginning, and in his shoes, I'd have told them it was none of their business!

Is there no limit to how low people will go to destroy the Clinton's?

Posted by: northernmeguy | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

What is it with us as a country. Why would you ask Hillary about Monica- as if she had anything to do about it. If you do not have the courage to ask Bill about it why bother Hillary. Certainly asking Chelsea about it is in very bad taste. Why would you ask the daughter about the woman that her father had a fling with? Common sense is apparently not too common anymore. Remember people, The Clintons- as much as I do not like their politics- are people first and everything else second.-

Posted by: B.Dwayne | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

When you are being a "big girl" grown-up and playing adult games like campaigning for your mother, yes, you may have to answer questions like that. She should have just said "No" because I am sure that would have been her answer and moved on. It certainly is a legitimate question, albeit a stupid question.
Ps. Hillary's credibility sucked long before Monica L.

Posted by: chris | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

Frankly, I can't figure out how anyone would want to vote for Hilary for the fact that who would want Bill to be back in the White House. He doesn't deserve to be there again!

Posted by: Marge | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

If you go around the country, having a Q & A at every college, any question is fair game. And Chelsea has the right to answer the way she did. Then we, the public, can take from it what we will.

Posted by: Daniel | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM

Not really!!! But it is fair to question her judgement of still being married to him. If it is such a big deal that Obama is still going to the same church, why is it not fair to ask why she is still married to Bill.

Why these are big issues for voters when there are other more important subjects still projects the "disdain" with which the politicians hold the voting public. It would be nice if the campaigning aimed slightly higher.

Posted by: osg | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM

When you actively participate as a member of a campaign and are a blood relative of the candidate, you should expect that boorish proletariat will ask boorish questions regarding the campaign and potential issues that may or may not be relevant. If you can't stand the heat, however, get out of the proverbial. Chelsea does not have a protective shield guaranteed to her simply because she is the child of a candidate. In these days of media intrusion into every aspect of celebrity one might have thought someone in the campaign would have mentioned this to the younger Clinton. Huffiness does not become either the candidate or her surrogate on the trail.

Posted by: Jimi Mosey | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM

All other candidates, Democrat and Republican, have their spouse there with them while they are campaigning. They are a major support for them while they are in the office of President. I find it odd that she has distanced her self from her husband and wonder if it is not connected to the infidelity and the stigma associated with it.

Posted by: JustWondering | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM

J O'Brien - " How could anyone condone such a crass question?"

When we've elected and reelected a crass President and now his powermongering wife is running for the same office.

When the Clintons are part of America's history and not present, then there might be hope for this country.

Posted by: Joop deBruin | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM

Absolutely Yes - If she is part of the campaign then she is fair game.

Posted by: Ken | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM

If Chelsea finds her parents' very public trail of deceptions too private to discuss, what is she doing on the campaign trail? She's 27 years old, not 7 or 17. She's not a child; in fact, she works for a hedge fund, Avenue Capital Group, and reportedly started with a $120,000 annual salary in her previous gig at McKinsey. She can, presumably, take care of herself.

In fact, Chelsea has been asked about that visit to Bosnia as well. Her response was to stand by her mother's obvious and self-serving lie about imaginary snipers. Since Chelsea was a witness to what really happened, that makes Chelsea a liar too, and saying "I'm her daughter" (yes, that's really what she said) is no excuse.

If there really had been sniper fire at that airport, Hillary should have left little Chelsea at home. The same goes for those uncomfortable questions about Hillary Clinton's credibility: Chelsea is an adult now, and if she doesn't like campaigning, she's free to stay home. If her ethically challenged parents were truly worried about bruising Chelsea's feelings, they would have behaved differently and lied less.

Posted by: mark.durham | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM

It is more than fair with Bill Clinton running aroung giving recmmendation about his wife. This is a family that has damaged public trust and moral standard expected by the voters for their service.What Bill did to Lewinsky is a moral decay that also reflects the close family members and his continuous lying and coverup does not reflect the quality of a president or the spouse who also wants to become the president.

Posted by: Al Paul | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM

I totally agree with B.D. Colen and might add Chelsea's response was dignified and effective. It made the questioner look like the total jerk he was trying to be.

Posted by: charlie b | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Wow! What a snippy little b----. Looks like the apple does not fall far from the tree! Of course it is fair to ask her this question! If she had any dignity and grace, she would have handled the question with tact and maybe even wit. Looks like she did not get those graces either. Too bad. Not a good show for good parenting.

Posted by: rosebud | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Absolutely fair. Monica Lewinsky had a huge impact on the Clinton presidency and Mrs. Clintons reaction/handling of that is relevant to her ability to be president. If Chelsea is campaigning for her mother, she should be willing to take questions related to her Mom's ability to handle crisis.
Her response to the "offensive" qs was inappropriate and rude.
If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
And by the way, I'm a big Hillary fan.

Posted by: Adam M | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Wow! What a snippy little b----. Looks like the apple does not fall far from the tree! Of course it is fair to ask her this question! If she had any dignity and grace, she would have handled the question with tact and maybe even wit. Looks like she did not get those graces either. Too bad. Not a good show for good parenting.

Posted by: rosebud | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

It's an interesting conversation about this question. Should it be asked - one would think the answer would be based on the direct relevance to her ability to make future decisions as president. Personally, for me the question seems more personal than job related. However, look at the Dick Cheney poor reaction when asked about a gay daughter - something that is both personal and at odds with the president's views. If we really want to look hard at candidate issues - then McCain as a POW was likely subjected to many terrible situations - torture?. Setting aside my total respect for all POWs - no one appears to be asking how he might handle the job as president in the darkest of moments, old fears, flashbacks.

Posted by: Steve | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Welcome to politics Chelsea!!!
You wanted to campaign for MOM, all is fair in questioning her about ANYTHING. Hillary poeple cannot pick & choose their battles! The are not "ENTITLED" to anything...so, quit your crying!!!

Posted by: Freddy B. | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Yes, she should use discretion first in how these questions are asked. If it is for any comfort for the audience and a general observation and clarification from her, Chelsea should address like: "It is for you the audience to judge. I see my mother strong, I see my mother generous, I see my mother magnanimous in her attitude to me and my father. This was definitely a personal tragedy but she has moved ahead leaving it far, far behind. She does not appear to me as One in the GRIP of any mental agony. I think forgiveness is an act of great strength of character."

Posted by: IJ for Clinton | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

yes. If she doesn't want to answer questions, then she should abandon the campaign trail.

Posted by: john | March 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Welcome to politics Chelsea!!!
You wanted to campaign for MOM, all is fair in questioning her about ANYTHING. Hillary poeple cannot pick & choose their battles! The are not "ENTITLED" to anything...so, quit your crying!!!

Posted by: Freddy B. | March 26, 2008 1:16 PM

If there were any real men present, they should have turned out the lights of the republidiot who asked the question. HOW RUDE AND STUPID CAN PEOPLE BE????

Posted by: Dave2 | March 26, 2008 1:16 PM

Well said, Mark Durham.

Posted by: Bob | March 26, 2008 1:16 PM

Somebody mentioned above, "a child should not have to take responsibility for his/her parents."
One should keep in mind that Chelsea is campaigning for her mother. In some sense, she is taking responsibility for her mother's campaign. So she needs to be prepared for any questions regarding her mother and the obvious attachment she has to former Pres. Clinton. While she acted surprised to hear the question, I am sure she had somewhat prepared her answer, which is respectable.

Also, Evan Strange was not a reporter in this question-answer forum, he was a college student, being allowed to ask whatever question he liked.

As Sally Quinn mentioned in the above interview, this scandal and the questions concerning it will remain a part of former Pres. Clinton's legacy. Unfortunately, the name Clinton remains attached to the scandal.

His choosing to ask a question about the scandal is fair. Chelsea Clinton's answer is fair.

-Fellow Butler Student

Posted by: a.rensink | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Chelsea should not be campaigning

Posted by: o well | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Since she's taken an active public role in this campaign she should be prepared to answer questions like this and not reply to them with a "that's none of your business". If she can't stand the heat she should stay away from the fire.

Posted by: XKR66 | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Rosebud
You are exactly "What a snippy little b----"

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

the guy just asked if he thought her credibility was damaged because of a scandal. The scandal had to do with sex, so nobody can handle that type of question. If they asked her if she thought that her mother's credibility was damaged by Whitewater, Chelsea probably would have just answered the question!!!!!

Posted by: chris | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

The sins of the parents are often pressed on the children. If the Clinton's have grandchildren and great-grandchildren in politics in the years to come, they must expect to be asked the same question.

But if asked, any Clinton should respond maturely, as we would of expect of any person whose father or grandfather had been President of the United States of America.

Posted by: Frank J | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

sniffsniffsniff... nothing the national political press corps loves more than reliving their glory(hole) years of sniffing out that blue gap dress.

ah, if only that investigative zeal could be turned to those who eviscerate the constitution; drive our military to the brink of collapse; engage in financial scams that impact the world.

but, no. they revel in that stain...

Posted by: linda | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

If it is fair to hold Obama responsible for what his pastor said then I think it is fair to ask Chelsea about her dad and Lewinsky. I also think it would have been fair to ask when her mother lied about the sniper fire, why the American people should over look it as in Hillary's words "I misspoke"? The truth is she got caught in a lie that she could not take back.

Posted by: Vicky Hook | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Any news professional who would ask such an "interesting" question (or echo it, mr. Ed) has either has no sense of fairness, no human dignity or is some kind of pervert.

Posted by: MM | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

First, if your adult daughter is going to be used to drum up money and support and actively campaign for you then you must expect crass questions.

Second, Hillary attacked Obama on the Wright issue saying you can choose your Church, and she would have left.

Guess what, you can choose your husband too, and could have left. I guess political aspirations outweigh infidelity.

Posted by: TheyAllStink | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

60% of American men and 40% of American women cheat. It is easy to get a divorce but takes strength to stay in a marriage and work it out no matter what the reason. Politics does not mix with personal mistakes one makes in their personal life. Asking Chelsea the question was inappropriate.

Posted by: Sandy | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

Yes its appropriate. Once she comes out to answer questions that favor her mother. She has to be willing to answer questions that may make her mother look bad. She cant just be the happy go lucky poster child that her mother is presenting. Nothing personal against her but there is questions that have yet to be answered.

Posted by: GI | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

Is it a question posed in a good taste? No. But is it "fair"? Since when have the Clintons cared about what's "fair", when it comes to politics? It's nice to see them getting a taste of their own medicine, for once; even if it's too bad that Chelsea Clinton, who seems like a nice and poised young lady, has to be dragged into this.

No doubt, the Lewinsky Affair was painful for the entire Clinton family. But it was difficult for the American people to have their lying president wag a finger at them and insist that he did not have sex with that woman, etc. So, if Ms. Clinton is going to continue campaigning for her mother, and asking Americans to give her their votes, she has to expect the occasional off-putting question. See, Ms. Clinton, the Lewinsky Affair was difficult for us, too. So if you and your parents don't want to talk about it, perhaps you all should just go away.

Just a thought. . .

Posted by: Matt | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

First, if your adult daughter is going to be used to drum up money and support and actively campaign for you then you must expect crass questions.

Second, Hillary attacked Obama on the Wright issue saying you can choose your Church, and she would have left.

Guess what, you can choose your husband too, and could have left. I guess political aspirations outweigh infidelity.

Posted by: TheyAllStink | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

I think it's fair game. After the Lewinsky scandal broke, Hillary rode the sympathy wave into a US Senate seat. Seeing as how she personally benefited from her husband's indiscretions, it's only fair that Chelsea, speaking on behalf Hillary, answer questions about the scandal without tearing off the questioner/supporter's face.

Posted by: Anne R. | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

Yes, it is fair. Chelsea has been talking on behalf of her mother. As a voter, I am trying to evaluate the canadidates. Thanks Evan Strange for asking the question.

Posted by: molly | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

No

Even the mafia left the kids alone

Posted by: celtcahill | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

If someone had asked me that question about my mother I would not only have told them that it was none of their business, I would have punch them in the nose.

Posted by: John | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

Doesn't matter - Hillary already blew the election with her Bosnia Sniper fire blast - oops!

Posted by: Ugggg | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

Yes, it is fair. Chelsea has been talking on behalf of her mother. As a voter, I am trying to evaluate the canadidates. Thanks Evan Strange for asking the question.

Posted by: molly | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

Since when do candidates and any of their campaign team members get to cherry pick issues? Perhaps she considers herself royalty and above these petty issues.

Posted by: Jason | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

Anyone has the right to ask any question, and she should have been prepared. She was rude, and selfish the way she answered. She did nothing to help her mother.

Posted by: Holli | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

If you're going to get on the stage, be ready to catch a few rotten tomatoes. It is a fair question. The fact that it was asked of Chelsea is irrelevant. The larger problem here, however, is that a single scandal can ruin the political career of most people. In the case of the Clintons, a thousand scandals simply point to quality of their character and to their substance as human beings

Posted by: Jim_NH | March 26, 2008 1:19 PM

If you are going to brainwash young people with fluff, you had better be prepared to field hard questions. Remember the apple doesn't too far from the tree. If you want to hunt with the big dogs you better be prepared. She is nothing special and should be treated like any other surrogate if she is campaigning for her mother. The best thing the press could do is stand it ground and tell her how its going to be, not the other way around. She out there trying to soft sell her mommy to young college kids. Hey we don't need to see Froto's buddy Sam in the picture either.

Posted by: MIKE | March 26, 2008 1:20 PM

The Clintons objected to a photo of Chelsea in a restaurant ( taken at the restaurant where she dined )and sent a letter via their lawyer to have it taken down. They said she is not a public figure and therefore the restaurant had no right to show a picture of her. Is she a public figure now that she is working with her mother on her campaign? Seems the Clintons have a do as I say and not as I do attitude. I am voting for McCain.

Posted by: Jamie | March 26, 2008 1:20 PM

If Chelsea wants to be "off limits" to reporters and sheltered from questions regarding her father's presidency, Chelsea Clinton should NOT be campaigning for her mother's presidency. Because she has put HERSELF in this VERY public position, she needs to stand up and answer questions. A question about her mother's response to her father's infidelity and subsequent impeachment (remember, he lied under oath) should be more than fair game, and is certainly the "business" of every american.

Posted by: Jaci | March 26, 2008 1:20 PM

Perhaps the question should have been asked of Bill. But in reality, Chelsea is an adult and she is campaigning for her mother; therefore asking the question is not out of line. In poor taste; yes, out of line; no.

A better question might be; "what is your opinion of Ms. Lewinsky? and what do you think the impact of Ms. Lewinsky and Bills tryst be on the election?"

-Rob

Posted by: rob | March 26, 2008 1:20 PM

Chelsea's now an adult! Her mother wants to be the President! All questions are fair game!!!! Does Hillary think that questions about Rose Law Firm billing records, Travelgate, Cattle futures, Vince forsters office, Pardongate all should be off limits too???? Come on..... this Lady needs to start ansawing some questions before she can steal the furnature fromt the Whitehouse for a second time!!!!

Posted by: kdleandro | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

MS CLINTON, you're not 15 years old anymore...answer the question, if you want to be taken seriously. Which up to this point in your life, has been impossible. Grow up!

Posted by: Jim Rome | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

"it must be so creepy having parents who lie so relentlessly"(swine2)

Then she should not be campaigning. Yes it is fair and she should answer or stay out of the limelight.

Posted by: james | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

The question was to the credibility of the candidate. Any behavior, action, event that relates to credibility is fair to question. Chelsea addresses audiences as a campaign spokesperson. She appeared to be taking personal offense as a daughter. She can't have it both ways. Hillary Clinton takes credit for White House experience. Taking a public stance in defense of illegal/immoral behavior that occurred during her time in the White House weighs against her credibility as a candidate.

Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

Though I do NOT like Hillary or Bill I think it's in poor taste to ask Chelsea about her Dad's short comings. However, they are sending her out there and there are a lot of nuts out there and it's hard to control what OTHER PEOPLE say! Considering all that Hillary has said and done to and about other people, maybe it's time to reel Chelsea in. After all, Hillary has no creditabilty left after her Bosnia lie.

Posted by: Debmood | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

"Is it fair to ask this question?" is a statement that not only would the Washington Post support, but the Clintons as well. It is borderline communism if anyone thinks that a question cannot be asked of a public servant.
Maybe we can demand a certain type of clothing to be worn by the press at these events too.

Posted by: chris | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

Not just no, but HELL NO!

I am so sick of this constant prying, sniping, gossiping and relentless hounding of political figures over their private sex lives. We are hiring these people to do a frickin' job, not run for pope or messiah. We need to get our noses out of other people's business and pay attention to our own lives.

The next thing ya know, we'll be requiring candidates for office to pull out their schlongs and breasts to see if they "measure up" to some sick ideal of manliness or femininity.

I don't know why we're spending trillions to fight religious fanatics, when America has been thoroughly polluted by our very own Morality Police.

Posted by: windrider | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

A final note: Senator Clinton was perfectly comfortable sending other people's kids to die in Iraq. I'm sure any of those 4,000 dead service members would be happy to trade places with Chelsea.

Posted by: mark.durham | March 26, 2008 1:22 PM

Question for Sally Quinn, Your a public person so I know you won't mind answering.

How much more did Ben Bradlee have to pay his first wife so she wouldn't say you broke up their marriage? What sex acts do you think that you performed for him that really sold you as a second wife?

Posted by: JimS | March 26, 2008 1:22 PM

Chelsea campaigns for her mother according to her rules. She doesn't speak to reporters, gets camera crews to turn off cameras when she doesn't want them on. Must be nice to be able to tell your job, oh by the way, I am taking off a few months to go campaign for my Mom. I hate the special treatment for the elite wealthy in this country. I think we ought to ask tougher character questions. I think we ought to hold their feet to the fire now before they hit the white house and then we complain why we wind up with someone with poor character (Bill Clinton) in the white house. If you want be in the most powerful position in the world, better bring your A game. We're sorry we couldn't sanitize our questions for you!

Posted by: For Everydaypeople | March 26, 2008 1:22 PM

Of course - if you want to play in the big leagues you need to answer tough questions.

Posted by: VP | March 26, 2008 1:22 PM

Of course - if you want to play in the big leagues you need to answer tough questions.

Posted by: VP | March 26, 2008 1:22 PM

She is 28, people should stop treating her as if she is 12. The scandal was long enough ago that she should be able to respectfully answer the question. She is an adult and she is taking a very active role in the campaign and therefore should answer tough questions. The way she rudely pushed away the question makes me lose some respect for her (although I have much more repsect for her than her mother).

Posted by: Ryan | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

Most of you need to learn some logic another 10 years.

Being in politics doesn't justify your poor behavior.
Right, politics is dirty, like everyone here knows. But does playing politics excuse bad behaviors? I think not.
It's bad that Clinton exaggerated her experience.
It's terrible obama told lies in national TV about his pastor.
It's unacceptable for someone ask a candidate's daughter about her father's affair.
So whoever talking about all is fair in politics should shut up. It's STILL OK for people like us to condemn bad behaviors in politics, and your dirty excuse can't deprive our rights to do that.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

HELL NO!

Posted by: Samuel Jr | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

Of course it isn't fair. Not only does it put Chelsea in an awkward position, but here is nothing to be gained from the question. How could she possibly have new insight to give us on this? If she said "My dad is really sorry and it won't happen again," would we believe her? Or do we really expect her to say, "It might happen again"? It is never fair or considerate to ask an embarrassing or personally awkward question unless there is something to be gained from the question that is more important than the embarrassment it causes.

Posted by: Matt | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

There is NOTHING new to learn from an answer -- so why act like a jerk and ask it?

Posted by: Mike A | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

If Chelsea can't answer all questions regarding her parents and their public life then she needs to get out of the limelight.

It was a fair question and given Hillary Clinton's record of deciet and so called "misspeaking" it needed to be asked and answered!!!

Posted by: Diane | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

Sen. Clinton has scraped her chin on the ground stooping to chop Obama off at the knees. Anything directed at her or her puppet surrogates is more than fair game. I would like to see a little more of the tactics used on the Clintons that they so thoroughly use on Obama and all others who stand in the way of their political ambitions. Also, a personal note to Hillary: (who commented you can't choose your family, but you have a choice when it comes to your pastor, and Obama should have walked out like she would have done) Hillary dear, you don't have a choice as to what family your born in but you do have a choice when it comes to who you have as a husband. Perhaps you should have walked when Bill was shoving his cigars where they didn't belong, and disgracing an entire nation with his impeachable actions in the White House, not to mention all his other numberable disgusting actitivies. People living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

Posted by: skyward | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

Perhaps the question asked of Chelsea Clinton about her mother's credibility in how Hillary responded to Bill's philandering was justified. It may have opened up a discussion on "moral values" in this nation, much like the Democrats have opened up a discussion on "race in America"! I personally do not know too many wives on Main Street that would tolerate the infidelity by their husbands that was a long modus operandi of Bill Clinton. I guess the question has never been truly answered. Why did Hillary choose to "stand by her man" when she once said she was "not a stand by your man kind of woman"? Perhaps just another flip-flop?
Bill Clinton did not have just a one-time affair. This guy was carrying on with illicit affairs when he was Governor of Ark. and Hillary always knew about his affairs.

Maybe we have a candidate here who is unprincipled and she will drag the bum back into the White House.

You are wrong Chelsea. Your father's philandering and your mother's apparent tolerance of his immoral behavior, is the business of the people because he was the President of the United States and she wants to be. "Character does count"!

Posted by: Larkin G. Mead | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

Indeed, a better question might be why parents with such tawdry and sleazy backgrounds might allow their only child to become enmeshed in the tawdry and sleazy political electoral process. Or, isn't it similar to the Hillary blatant criticism of the Reverend Wright (tawdry and sleazy commentary) and as such, any and all questions to Chelsea are by nature and process acceptable. The Clinton couple is desperate for any edge and even using their only daughter in this tawdry and sleazy process was well considered and decided. As I see it, Chelsea might be ill prepared to make statements of candidate worth and worthiness unless or until her fortitude and character and personal knowledge is challenged. Otherwise, she is simply a genetic blob without anything to contribute to the process expect as a childlike and hurtful symbol of irrational, despicable parentage. It was the Clinton couple who have (no) or little humility by sending this child-like waif into the jaws of electoral politics. Or otherwise, maybe her personal character more so resembles her father's as she lives in the impersonal, concrete jungle of Manhattan where decadence is widespread and readily available. Regardless, angle-like or devil, the Clinton couple will do anything to win including subjecting their only daughter to tawdry questions about blue dresses and Cuban cigars. Why would you do that? Most normal people shield and protect their children from ugliness. And, in this case, guaranteed ugliness.

Posted by: barry | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM

Fair question? Problably not, but there's the Freedom of the Press. Is it intelligent press? Mostly not. It seems that most Press people would rather focus on NON-ISSUES--and that, sadly, is Freedom of the Press.

It's easier to ask questions that are sexually edgy than to ask the hard questions like: how do Clinton or Obama actually plan to pull out of Iraq?

It's the DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA, folks. The Press don't ask the hard questions because they don't really understand or don't want to hear the hard answers! The Press is merely a reflection of the mentality of the masses.

If you don't like the questions being asked by the Press, then start asking the hard questions of yourself.

Posted by: Maggie | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM

Why do we treat our politicians with kid gloves? No surprise that the crowd in attendance cheered at Chelsea's immature response. The surprise should be that we the people should feel intimidated to ask tough questions of our politicians that we would have no problem asking our babysitters. Everyone's gaze naturally turned to Hillary's reaction after the Lewinsky scandal. We give no quarter to our inconsequential celebrities, and that reaction is a measurable act of real character that we have on the woman. The issue is not really about what the reaction was, but how she responded publically. She handled it like the disingenuous political reptile that she is. This was a significant event in which political spin doctors were powerless to pervert the details. Who actually believes (Hillary included) that she would be where she is today without her husband? She only had the foresight not to ruin her political future. She revealled nothing honest either way pertaining to her character as leader, or as to her humanity. I think the person asking the question thought she was a legitimate candidate, but was honestly curious about that subject. Why not just ask another banal question with the normal generic positivist response? Why is Obama's Reverend's statements more inbounds than the First Lady's handling of the President's indiscretions with an intern? She is a blue-blooded American politician through and through. Her will to power is strong enough to carry on even at the cost of her party's possible defeat. What other indiscretions is she able to overlook? What else is she capable of? No one will ever ask, or apparently be permitted to.

Posted by: Scott Jones | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM

She WAS asked the question, so the debate is moot. She gave a good response, and put the Strange fellow in his place.

She should have also asked him who he was planning to vote for.

Posted by: Steve | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM

Fair - YES
Necessary - NO

Sounds like an Obama person in the crowd. SO much in the press these days bringing up "the Monica". Typical politics to throw the other person off guard. Doesn't get the voters any closer to the issues of America.

Posted by: dee | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM

NO!!!! The questioner showed appaulingly bad judgement and extremely bad intentions. Neither Hillary nor Chelsea were complicit in their husband's/ father's misbehavior. They were, though, humiliated on a global scale. There is absolutely no justification for holding Chelsea or Hillary accountable for this. If anything, the questioner should be held to account for bad manners and what is clearly a vicious intent.

Posted by: dclb | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM

There is something to be gained from asking Chelsea how she felt/feels about her parents marriage. It would be interesting to find out what she thinks the daughters of the former NY governor are experincing, how she felt at the time of her father's troubles and how she feels about her mother's response to the Lewinsky affair.

If she doesn't want to answer tough questions then she should sit her azz down.

Posted by: DUDECAMER0N | March 26, 2008 1:24 PM

What in the world does this question have to do with Hillary's credibility? Chelsea gave an appropriate response and one Bill should have given when asked the first time, "It is none of your business." Chelsea has been an exemplary "first child" and to put her on the spot in this way was disrespectful. Did anyone ever ask the Bush twins if their
father's credibility was affected by his 30 years of alcoholism or his drug use? Or his support of the Viet Nam war and yet his refusal to put himself in harm's way?

Posted by: J. McMahon | March 26, 2008 1:25 PM

You can't be serious with this question.

She's fair game. She is an adult who made a decision to work for her mothers campaign. The Obama kids are children why would you ask them if their dad did cocaine. Now if they were adults & campaigning for their father they would be fair game. If your a surrogate who's gonna tell me why your candidate is the best you better be able to answer a tough question.

I don't know why anyone is surprised the question came up. I bet a lot of people have been wondering but didn't have the nerve to ask.

My father ran for office in a small town & you would not believe the things people asked me & I wasn't campaigning for him. I can't believe the Clinton campaign was so naive to think no one would ask Chelsea about the "blue dress" just because she's Hillary's child. But then again maybe they did. Who knows?

Posted by: CC | March 26, 2008 1:25 PM

Is It Fair to Ask Chelsea Clinton About Lewinsky?
Is It Fair to Bomb Serbia 1999. and kill 3500 people to hide a love affair and impeachment?
What is guilt Milica Rakic-Belgrade-Serbia, 3 years old, killed on chamber pot, and 90 other children?
In memoriam 24.03.1999.-11,06.1999.
Is It Fair to Remember? Is It Allowed?

Posted by: cox | March 26, 2008 1:25 PM

All is fair ... any question ... keeping the press at arms length is OK ... but, not people you are trying to persuade to vote one way or the other. The whole issue of bill points to a fact that Hillary would just as soon never have broached: her judgment for marrying bill in the first place, and then staying with him. Would it be fair to ask delicate little chelsea about her mom's lies about her running from sniper fire in Bosnia? That too is fair game ...

Fredegar N MacMough, doncha know

Posted by: faddy macmough | March 26, 2008 1:25 PM

Sounds like an Obamadama student. Also sounds like The Borg from Star Trek. Programmed.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM

Absolutely, she is an adult who willingly puts herself in that position. She seems like a perfectly nice young lady, but her parents are maggots. One cannot expect a magic carper ride.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM


Of course it's fair; it's in the public domain.
Another question that should be asked of the Clintons: If Hillary is elected, do the Clintons plan to return the silverware and other items they took from the White House when Bill's term ended?

Posted by: Katiedog | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM

I'm an Obama supporter and do NOT think the subject belongs in the campaign at all.

Posted by: Rick | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM


Of course it's fair; it's in the public domain.
Another question that should be asked of the Clintons: If Hillary is elected, do the Clintons plan to return the silverware and other items they took from the White House when Bill's term ended?

Posted by: Katiedog | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM

If his mother had raised him right, he would not have asked, just as I would not asked the Bush twins about their drunkard father.

Posted by: Rick | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM


Of course it's fair; it's in the public domain.
Another question that should be asked of the Clintons: If Hillary is elected, do the Clintons plan to return the silverware and other items they took from the White House when Bill's term ended?

Posted by: Katiedog | March 26, 2008 1:26 PM

It is in really bad taste. How trashy can the press get?

Posted by: Doug Pierson | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

If recent news had not come to light about HRC's whereabouts during Bill's tryst, then neither Chelsea nor her mother should ever have had to deal with such a question. However, since Hillary was in the White House at the time it begs the question of whether she knew it was going on and looked the other way like the Secret Service.

Posted by: Jesse | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

It is in really bad taste. How trashy can the press get?

Posted by: Doug Pierson | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

It is in really bad taste. How trashy can the press get?

Posted by: Doug Pierson | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

Yes I think it is fair since she was also caught lying regarding the sniper fire I can't imagine letting Bill anywhere near the white house again even as first lady

Posted by: Craig | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

Of course it is fair. If Chelsea is going to be publicly visible and campaign for her Mother then she should be prepared and poised to answer questions regarding her Mother's strength and ability to run this Country. In addition, if she had been prepped by her PR team then she would have been more poised and less obviously shocked when the question arose. She can't possibly believe that this poor legacy her Father left behind was going to vanish and that she would never be questioned about it again. That is just plain naive on her part. Answer it, don't answer it, but for goodness sake don't be such a spoiled, pampered child about it - be gracious and a bit less indignant to those who may (or hopefully may not) be supporting your Mother in a race to become President of our Country. Chelsea did her Mother a disservice by her response.

Posted by: J. Dwyer | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

people people people
listen to the damn question that was asked..
He asked if she thought her credibility was damaged, not if it was her dad's fault or even her mother's fault, or anything else that you people are imagining. LISTEN BEFORE YOU TYPE. It was a stupid question, but try commenting on the actual question instead of what you think he asked.

Posted by: chris | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

It was a very Strange question.

Posted by: John | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

That guys in for a world of hurt if she becomes president. Just look at the trail of dead people and carrion left behind the Clinton band wagon. He better not even j-walk. The Billary machine is ruthless.

Posted by: Rob | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

"the choice would be clear." -HRC

I guess it's OK to abandon a preacher whose words offend you, but an unfaithfully husband, cheating under your nose (which according to HRC was always involved in Bill's issues), out of the question. Stick with him Hill, you deserve what you get!

Chelsea. You are a Clinton. You were raised to be dishonest and win at all costs. You can handle it!

Posted by: TheyAllStink | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

Chelsea answered the question the same way I would have and the question was in bad taste. However Chelsea should be subjected to tough, relevant questions about her mothers fictional accounts in Bosnia etc. Chelsea has been given a free pass like she is a child, she is an adult campaigning for the meanest woman alive. Make Chelsea define her stances in a logical and insightful way.

Posted by: jimwalksdogs | March 26, 2008 1:27 PM

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. But I think it is fair, as she is campaigning for her mother, Senator Clinton. Is it a gutter question, yes, but fair just the same. And Chelsea answered appropriately. Now, does this open up all children of Politician's 18 years and older to these type of questions regarding the same? Yes. So maybe the press needs to take a 2nd look. These isssues are just old hat now.
But Obama has some real issues as they pertain not to his relationship with his spouse, but with his personal beliefs of equality for ALL Americans and his philosophy of America itself. It effects his creditibility and judgement for the majority of American voters, regardless of Political affiliation.

Posted by: Texas Democrat | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM

Only in America do we expend time on the sublimely stupid while ignoring the enormously important.

We deserve the pathetic crop of candidates we have running for office because we're too stupid, lazy, ignorant, and doped up to screen them out.

Posted by: JDaniel | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM

I thought her answer was respectful, considering what was asked.

Posted by: Steven | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM

I have just begun reading these blogs and the one truth I see is that none of it provides any worthwhile insights into the candidates: each response merely mirrors the writer's prejudices. I can get that listening to talk radio (and I have never been able to listen to talk radio for more than a few minutes before turning it off in disgust.)

I am reaching for the "off" button on this blog right now

Posted by: Linda | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM

is it fair to ask - yes
is it fair to not answer? her choice; but her answer made no sense. I did not vote for Bill, I will never vote for Hillary.

Posted by: george | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM

Hey, if Willy, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick didn't want to traumatize their children, they should have stayed out of other people's beds. What I dont understand is why Democartic women put up with it. I guess it's part of the total loss of any moral compass in the Democratic Party. It's mind over matter: If you don't mind,it doesn't matter.

Posted by: puffcat | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM

Hey, if Willy, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick didn't want to traumatize their children, they should have stayed out of other people's beds. What I dont understand is why Democartic women put up with it. I guess it's part of the total loss of any moral compass in the Democratic Party. It's mind over matter: If you don't mind,it doesn't matter.

Posted by: puffcat | March 26, 2008 1:28 PM

I am an example of why the question must be asked. Whether it's dumb or not can be argued. But either way, I have decided not to vote in support of Clinton because if she is not strong enough to leave a man who makes a fool of her for more than 30 years, she is not strong enough to be president of the United States. She is not a strong woman if she need her husband to have importance no matter what sacrafice (i.e. self dignity) she must make. There could have been an answer from Chelsea to make me at least consider otherwise. But it didn't happen. No one has ever been able to give a good case to the contrary.

Posted by: A Scott | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

Hey, if Willy, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick didn't want to traumatize their children, they should have stayed out of other people's beds. What I dont understand is why Democartic women put up with it. I guess it's part of the total loss of any moral compass in the Democratic Party. It's mind over matter: If you don't mind,it doesn't matter.

Posted by: puffcat | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

She chose to get involved in the campaign. In the words of Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Posted by: JT | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

It is our business as Americans to know and consider everything we can about our candidates. History has proven that cheating, lying and coverup have been and will be a big part of the Clinton repertoire.

Posted by: Jean | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

Is it fair?

Perhaps, in terms of journalism. But it is certainly NOT courteous or chivalrous, and shame on those who would stoop to this kind of conduct in our public discourse.

To question a young lady before the public regarding the sexual improprieties committed in the past by her parent is downright despicable. It is truly "ungentlemanly" behavior...the kind that, one hundred and fifty years ago, might have resulted in a challenge to duel. A custom that, given the acceptance of such behavior, we might wish to consider reviving.

Posted by: Ben | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

"the choice would be clear." -HRC

I guess it's OK to abandon a preacher whose words offend you, but an unfaithful husband, cheating under your nose (which according to HRC was always involved in Bill's issues), out of the question. Stick with him Hill, you deserve what you get!

Chelsea. You are a Clinton. You were raised to be dishonest and win at all costs. You can handle it!

Posted by: TheyAllStink | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

man, chelsea is hot!

Posted by: hornyguy | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

Totally fair game, if unpleasant (like, duh, race). Her father was impeached. Her mother blamed it on a right wing conspiracy. Her mother says she would have walked out of Rev. Wright's church. Yet she didn't walk out of her marriage, the point being "forgive and forget." But Chelsea is now a shill for her parents' political ambitions, so All is fair in love and war.

Posted by: kate o'hara | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

NO,NO,NO, IT IS WICKED, AND FUNDAMENTALLY
GUTTER JOURNALISM. PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS. THIS IN AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING WHO HAS ALREADY DELT WITH THE TRAUMA AND SHAME OF THIS PAST,PAST,PAST, EVENT. ENOUGH ALREADY.

Posted by: CVSEALY | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

This was a question about credibility, not a personal question. Imagine if Hillary had been asked if her credibility had been damaged by the Monica Lewinsky affair. Would she have said, "None of your business?" I don't think so. If Chelsea is campaigning for her mother, she can be asked and should respond to the same questions her mother would. Chelsea had obviously been coached to say 'none of your business' if the ML affair came up, but I believe in her youth she used the coaching inappropriately. A better response would have been that her mother handled a difficult, personal situation in a (fill in the blanks) way, and the voters can make up their minds about it. The way Chelsea did it was a turn-off; however, as I said she had obviously been coached.

Posted by: Rose | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

Phil Kelley:

Is it fair to ask you in a open forum about your mother's lovers? Even if you answer yes to my question, it is definitely not proper to ask chelsey about Monica.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

Once one begins campaigning for a candidate, one should be ready to address any question--the daughter of a former president and possibly of a future one should do much better than "it's none of your business!"

Chelsea had the chance to show some Q&A skills and failed miserably. Maybe a better answer would have been "I think my mother's credibility is based on A, B, C" and completely left the Lewinsky issue to the side. Isn't that what politicians do?

Posted by: RB | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

Fair game. If she wants to be an adult and field questions, then she has to field them all. She went to Stanford, she's a big girl. She's had a lot of time to figure out what daddy and mommy did, and why. She doesn't have to campaign if she doesn't want to.

Posted by: D. Light | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

of course it is fair game. afterall, chances are her father was playing house under the same roof, at the same time, chelsea was there.

how hillary buckled to bill in this regard speaks volumes on herself and everyone has a right to question why.

but hillary is still 100x the person and candidate obama is. i will vote for her because i do believe she way more genuine that obama.

Posted by: freearth | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

it is not a bad question...
If it was a credibility question regarding Whitewater - nobody would be on this blog
Since the scandal was sex and not money -everyone cares now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: chris | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM

In her book Hillary Clinton states that the Lewinsky affair was "the most difficult moment of her life" (more difficult than say a call at 3 am). Her reaction according to her own words was "I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?"... If this is the most trying moment of her life and her reaction is to panic, cry, and yell, then it absolutely calls in her ability to lead. If this is too PRIVATE to discuss, then by all means DO NOT run for PUBLIC office. I do agree, sending a little girl out to face sins that leave a grown women gasping for air is not right, but thats the Clinton's for you.

Posted by: Adam | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM

It is fair and the Hillary campaign might welcome it. It gives her a chance to provide her personal opinion on the matter which - no matter what she says - will likely be looked at in a positive light. The backlash for asking the question would likely be on the journalist that posed it (i.e. leave Chelsea alone, what does this matter, the media is evil, etc,). I think distancing herself from the question could be worse because the question still lingers. I think most people know the answer to the question, but to hear Chelsea's opinion would help build the personal aspect to Hillary that doesn't seem to come through all that often. It was a hard thing for Hillary to go through and I'm sure Chelsea could reflect on it well.

Posted by: NK | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM

I think it's a stupid, mud-slinging move made by other candidates. I'm not saying I'm a Hilary supporter, but all I've seen lately about Obama & Hilary is $h!t-slinging... might just have to vote for McCain....

Posted by: AngelEyez | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM

I think it's great, and people should do it more often. The negative backlash is almost certain to propel Clinton's campaign forward. Obamiacs need to be punished for their incessant jabs/jabbering regarding Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky "scandal", which at the core was nothing more than a hit job(oh excuse me, that's a racially charged term now, right?) by an overzealous GOP.

Posted by: Dave | March 26, 2008 1:32 PM

It was NOT a question about the affair. It was NOT a question about her personal relationship to her father's behavior. It was a question about a scandal involving her candidate mother who was directly involved and how that is affecting the campaign. The Clinton name is synonymous with Lewinsky, sex, and impeachment. It must be asked, and those who campaign on her behalf can absolutely can be asked.

I was a Clinton supporter, but it's clear how strangely unhealthy most Clinton supporters lack of logic can become. It's cult-like. I'm out. I'm supporting Obama.

Posted by: Mick | March 26, 2008 1:32 PM

If you are going to actively participate in politics, then YES.

Posted by: Bill Johnson | March 26, 2008 1:32 PM

Those who say that it is alright to ask Chelsea about Monica Lewinsky are nothing but low-life creatures that don't deserve to be living in a civilized society.

The question is sheer provocation with no real intent but to hurt a sweet,dignified and sophisticated woman thinking of bringing her to the gutter.

It is quite clear that these are Clinton haters and Obama supporters who continuously wallow in the mud. Pardon me but it shows these people were not raised properly.

Posted by: tim591 | March 26, 2008 1:32 PM

The person who were hurted mostly in Monica Lewinsky scandal are Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton. Asking this question is rubbing salt into their wounds. Moreover, why should this affect Hillary Clinton's credibility? Why should the wife and daughter be responsible for the husband/father's infedelity?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:32 PM

Very bad taste. Even in political journalism there are some boundaries only the morally feeble will cross.

Posted by: Ravi B | March 26, 2008 1:32 PM

Of course it's fair. If you can't take the heat don't volunteer to work in the kitchen.

Posted by: steve | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Of course it's fair. She is an adult campaigning for a presidential candidate. It's appalling that the press allows her dictate whether she can be asked questions. If she doesn't want to play get out of the sand box. She is an adult for goodness sake, on a presidential campaign trail.

Posted by: Tim Barlen | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Anything is fair in Politics and War. All one has to do is read Bill Clintons book and you will find absolutely nothing if the fault of a Clinton. Everything in the book is not his fault including the women. Chelsea should have read, and digested that her parents know no wrong and she is old enought to answer....or will she?

Posted by: John Brannen | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Anything is fair in Politics and War. All one has to do is read Bill Clintons book and you will find absolutely nothing if the fault of a Clinton. Everything in the book is not his fault including the women. Chelsea should have read, and digested that her parents know no wrong and she is old enought to answer....or will she?

Posted by: John Brannen | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM

I think that asking that question was very inapproiate and should not have been asked they say that children are off limits i realize that chelsea is not a child anymore but she was when this incident took place. Mr. Strange is just as his name implies!

Posted by: SHARON | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Normally, I would consider a candidate's children off-limits for the media, however in this case I think Chelsea is fair game. She is fair game becuase she is actively campaigning for her mother. If she was standing on the sidelines, like during her father's campaign, then she would be off-limits. Anybody who is actively campainging for a candidate, no matter what the relation, is open to questioning. And this was a valid question. The student was asking a question about Hillary's credibility, not asking Chelsea what she was going through during the ordeal. The Clinton's are protective of their daughter, which is fine, but if she is campaiging for her mother to be President, and she's now an adult, then she is fair game to be asked these kinds of questions about her mother.

Posted by: josh | March 26, 2008 1:33 PM

I think there are valid points on both sides of this argument.

Is it "fair" to ask Chelsea. Sure, it's fair. Chelsea is campaigning for her mother. She has insight most on many subjects that others don't have.

But is it relevant? I don't see any purpose to this question other than to make Chelsea squirm. I think the question is in bad taste, and the answer makes no difference to the majority of voters.

Posted by: thomco | March 26, 2008 1:34 PM

As she is actively campaigning for her mother, she is not a child, she is capable of making and voicing her own opinions,and as all seems fair in politics then Yes. Was it in poor taste, perhaps. I found it more interesting that she could not come up with a better response.

Posted by: Lynn | March 26, 2008 1:34 PM

First I think the question was crude, rude and tacky. This question should be asked of her mother. If parents want to fight we say don't do it in front of the children, therefore Chelsey may not know all the details and probably shouldn't as this is a question of the marriage not ability to parent. Personally I admire Bill & Hilary for keeping the marriage together. Isn't that family values!!!!!

Posted by: Susan | March 26, 2008 1:34 PM

Bravo Chelsea!

Posted by: Al | March 26, 2008 1:34 PM

Yes, it a fair question but the real question should be why Chelsea, who seems to be a decent, and caring person is campaigning for the likes of her mother & (father) who are unscrupulous, power hungary unmentionables who are willing to do anything to win including destroying their own party, and now the revelation that HRC is not as experienced as she claims...well, maybe that's not such a revelation!

"Because of Sniper fire, we had to run for cover..." What a STUPID, childish lie!! And this is what we want in the White house!!

Posted by: DET | March 26, 2008 1:34 PM

It's not fair to ask Chelsea. It's also pointless. She was the teenage presidential daughter at the time of the scandal, so she has a point of view incomparable to any other voter's.

I support Obama, but I still recognize that this questioning is wrong.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:34 PM

Do I believe this question was fair game to pose? Yes. Chelsea Clinton is a surrogate of the campaign and therefore by definition a supporter Senator Clinton. At its basest level, the question itself is simply a request for a yes/no opinion which I'd see no problem asking any supporter of Senator Clinton.

Do I believe it was in good taste to pose it? No. I highly doubt that the person posing the question really cared to know Chelsea's opinion was on the matter. Rather, I think they were just trying to get attention.

Do I believe that Chelsea had the right to respond as she did? Absolutely. In my view, she had every right to decline to respond. I think it was the best option available - rather than dignify the person with an answer to a question which she judged to be intentionally inflammatory and hurtful.

I am not a Clinton supporter, but I applaud Chelsea Clinton for her management of the situation.

Posted by: htm | March 26, 2008 1:35 PM

I've always liked the Clintons and I voted for Bill twice. I feel for Chelsea and think it's in poor taste to ask her about such a personal matter; however, if Hillary is going to run on the legacy of Bill's adminstration and Chelsea's going to stump for her Mom on all of her "expereince", then isn't it fair to ask how her Mother acted in a time of crisis in the White House.

Posted by: Jeff Deutsch | March 26, 2008 1:36 PM

First for all of you who do not get it (or don't want to get it), it was never about Baba cheating, it was that he (as the Clintons often do) he lied! Just like her duke and run story. She had several opportunities to get the story right in the past few days and she just keep on lying. It looks as if it runs in the family with Celseas comment about that is the first time anyone has ask me that. Yea, right. If she were in the Whitehouse it would be like bringing Nixon back from the dead and placing him in.

Posted by: Michael | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

Chesie dealt with the question appropriately.

As to whether she should be asked??????

If one gets into the gutter of presidential politics..be prepared to get dirty.

Posted by: don r | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

If Hillary knew about the affair while it was going on, her credibility suffers!

Posted by: Jedeki | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

The issue is not whether the question was fair. The issue is whether such a stupid question even warranted a response. What possible measure of Hilliary Clinton's professional qualifications may be determined by such a question? Such question is only suitable for publication in some tabloid rag, not a profession news organization. The media odviously has nothing better to do with it's time. Scchhheeeeshh.

Posted by: B | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

Is it fair? Yes. (All's fair in war and politics.) Is it significant? No. I would question anyone making a decision on the presidency based on this question OR the answer to it a sick person.

Posted by: etroup | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

Hooray for Chelsea!!!! Now, if only politicians like her mother would stand up to the press and make them do their real jobs, such as uncovering the lies that got us into a war.

Posted by: Peter | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

I don't know if it's "fair" ... but it is certainly tacky to ask Chelsea about Monica.

If we had classier questions for our politicians, maybe we would have classier politicians one day.

Posted by: z. lerp | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

No! People should not ask a child for his/her parents' affairs!

Posted by: Martin | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM

I think it is very fair if she is going to out there for her Mom then she will need to answer any questions, also, if Hilary were to win that means Bill would be back at the White House--is this what we want? Maybe Hilary will be able to pay Bill back

Posted by: Flash46819 | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM

I think it is very fair if she is going to out there for her Mom then she will need to answer any questions, also, if Hilary were to win that means Bill would be back at the White House--is this what we want? Maybe Hilary will be able to pay Bill back

Posted by: Flash46819 | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM

I think it is very fair if she is going to out there for her Mom then she will need to answer any questions, also, if Hilary were to win that means Bill would be back at the White House--is this what we want? Maybe Hilary will be able to pay Bill back

Posted by: Flash46819 | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM

Sally Quinn do you realize the sensitivity of affairs? Can you imagine if this happened and were asked of your child? Children whether they are 25 or 50 should not be subjected to those kinds of questions about their parents!

Posted by: kt | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM

Sally Quinn got her job and her marriage by doing her married boss (Ben Bradlee) under the desk at the Wahington Post. I wonder if she'd like to talk to us a path to success for young ladies who do their bosses. She's still got her job. I love watching her act all high-class now. LOL.

Posted by: JimS | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM

No it is not fair. She is a much responsible for her parents actions as Obama children are for his decision to attend a church where the US is critized in the worst way. Let use some common sense!!

Posted by: Carmen | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM

I'm so tired of the illogical analogy that:
Can I ask Obama's kids or you kids?

HRC put Chelsea out there. He is holding fund raisers and rallies as a surrogate for her mother's campaign.

Can I ask Terry McAuliffe the same question?

HRC put her ambitions above her daughter. She knows dirty politics from both sides. If she wanted to shield her daughter, then she should have kept her out of the campaign.

Again another unwise Hillary Judgment. Maybe I'd think differently if she was just Hillary Rodham and made the proper decision back in the 90s.

Posted by: TheyAllStink | March 26, 2008 1:39 PM

Are you kidding? We all should know it is senseless to ask any Clinton a question. You will never get a straight answer anyway. And for sure you will never get a truthful answer.

"Sillary" has proven herself to be a patholical liar.

Look at her words on NAFTA, refuted by prior actions and words

The list of her and all clinton lies is
too long to cite here, but I am waiting for a news source to list them all for public view and decision on her viability as candidate for the office.

Posted by: dont | March 26, 2008 1:39 PM

Can we ask Rudy Guiliani"s son about his parents divorce. Can we ask Laura Bush about the boyfriend she killed with her car when she was 16 yo. How about Mary Chaney about her father supports such antigay policy while she has a child with her female lover.

Posted by: mike stuiut | March 26, 2008 1:39 PM

Can we ask Rudy Guiliani"s son about his parents divorce. Can we ask Laura Bush about the boyfriend she killed with her car when she was 16 yo. How about Mary Chaney about her father supports such antigay policy while she has a child with her female lover.

Posted by: mike stuiut | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Fair? Possibly.

But how about in poor taste? Sounds like a question designed to sting, and one best reserved for the parents.

Posted by: Lori | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

It's rude, stupid and does not impact on the campaign how Chelsea feels about the Lewinsky matter. Evan Strange, the Butler U. student doing the asking, needs a refresher course on sensitivity and manners.

Posted by: Rfalken | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM


Sure, let's all vote for this woman. From today:

Hillary and Chelsea to be key witnesses in Bill Clinton Fraud Trial in Los Angeles
Quote

The new documentary film "Indicting Hillary" shows Hillary Clinton's role in the campaign fraud that elected her to the Senate. It combines explosive home video taken by Peter Paul with key interviews to show why Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead America.


Stan Lee swears $225,000 reported by Hillary Clinton to the FEC was not his!

This video shows "Spider Man" creator Stan Lee swearing under oath that he contributed nothing to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, contradicting Hillary's latest report to the FEC."

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Why is this even a question? She is an adult. Her credibility is on the line when she makes an advocacy for someone. Why not? Of course, its a fair question.

Posted by: Anderson | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

I can't imagine her answering it any other way and the reporter who posed it was an idiot. Does anyone care ? Was that supposed to provide insight ?

Journalism at it's worst.

Posted by: wdicken | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Hey anyone can ask Chelsea anything they want and she can say she won't respond.

As to Sally Quinn's comments about why the press doesn't push Chelsea it maybe that contrary to Sally Quinn most of them are decent. The other thing that happens by camera's not covering Chelsea is the Clinton's don't get news coverage of a bright young woman campaigning for her mother - that is the trade-off.

I haven't seen the McCain children being asked about the Savings and Loan scandal or their father's dumping his first wife for a second rich one or the rumours about their fathers affair which the NY Times intimated. Decency allows reporters not to do that.

If you want to know how Hillary handled the Monica Lewinsky issue ask her not her daughter Chelsea. Sally Quinn should be ashamed of herself for intimating that the question is appropriate.

Posted by: peterdc | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

Bill Clinton is not running for president. Does his wife and daughter
have to account for his behavior too?
If we're having to account for our family
members we might never again have a
politician.

Posted by: Jose | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

I am shocked it hadn't been asked before at one of the more than 70 college campuses she went visited, and actually, her credibility is suspect with me with that statement. If she offered an open forum and put forth other opinions and assessments of situations her mother experienced, then she should have expected some questions about Monica Lewinsky. This one could have been answered with a "I don't know what impact this had on her credibility, and wouldn't know how to estimate that" rather than denigrating the person asking the question.

Posted by: SD | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM

1. Chelsea chose to be a surrogate, so she knew the risks.

2. However, the question-- even more so than "boxers or briefs"-- was inappropriate. So she is to be congratulated to drawing that line.

3. But there are many other appropriate -- and potentially embarrassing-- questions about Sen. Clinton's credibility that one might have asked, including, "Chelsea, you were there with your mother in Bosnia. Did you ever remind her that none of that ever happened-- and why did she continue to lie after your reminder?"

Posted by: `Calvin | March 26, 2008 1:41 PM

I just loved that "none of your business" response. It is a pose of imperial arrogance, the question treated as lese majesty. It encapsulaes that sense of entitlement by the Clintons - any questions of character or judgment are irrelevant "none of your business". The presidency is their birthright. Of course, the Lewinski scandal was the greatest crisis which Senator Clinton dealt with in the White House. How she handled it, what she would put up with or do to retain power is "none of our business". It was a classical answer.

Posted by: Dan | March 26, 2008 1:41 PM

Well HRC once complained when she was accused of "pimping out" her daughter but clearly the campaign is sending Chelsea out to battle Obama's monopoly on the young vote. Thus, as a campaign spokesperson, any question is fair game, but as a daughter it is not. So HRC needs to decide, is it more important to HRC to send her daughter out on the campaign trail or does she love her daughter more than the thought of being president.

Posted by: JonathanR | March 26, 2008 1:41 PM

Why is it in poor taste to ask someone who is an active supporter of a candidate if their candidate is a credible person after the openly lied for their adulterous husband and did not leave the cheating spouse afterwards.

Presidential race aside Hillary isn't a strong woman to just roll over as her husband messed around (many times.)

Posted by: Jack | March 26, 2008 1:42 PM

Yes it is.

Because we now know it happened when Hillary was home, It bring into question her awareness, perceptiveness and ability to come to the right conclusions about situations. All these are skills needed in a President.

Perhaps it could have been phrased: If Bill was able to fool you about Monica, How can we be sure some foreign leader won't be able to fool you about something vital to the country's interests?

Posted by: mwortman | March 26, 2008 1:42 PM

The question (or comment) makes no grammatical sense. Bill Clinton's and Monica Lewinsky's credibility may be in question as a result of the illicit affair. The former president's credibility certainly is in question because he lied about it.

However, unless Hillary herself concealed the affair between Bill and Monica from the public following her husband's false testimony, her credibility is not implicated. Is someone contending that Hillary lied?

Posted by: Stephen S | March 26, 2008 1:42 PM

"Fair"?? You ever notice how we love to ask ourselves unfocused, non-valued questions like this? Is it "fair" to ask Chelsea this?? What on earth does Fairness have to do with it??
This is the same mindset which leads to calling alcoholism a "disease", and to the rise of victimhood as an asset.

Posted by: Skull Dugger | March 26, 2008 1:44 PM

Would you ask anyone else to comment publicly on a parents' betrayal or affair? Just because Chelsea has entered public life does not mean she should be treated indecently...

and I'm an Obama supporter!

Posted by: be_reasonable | March 26, 2008 1:44 PM

Wikipedia says: "Quinn was critical of President Bill Clinton during the impeachment trial, stating that he had "fouled the nest,"[4] much to Clinton's outrage[citation needed]. Quinn had a long-standing animus for the Clintons, possibly due to a perceived snub by First Lady Hillary Clinton, who declined a party invitation from Quinn" sounds like CBS and ole Sally hate the Clintons.

Posted by: cbl | March 26, 2008 1:44 PM

Umm like hellooo? It is totally not fair to ask me these questions. I will only answer questions about how my Mommy is like totally super cool and stuff. Daddy and I are like going to have this web site shut down and stuff for totally allowing a discussion about me. This is like totally unfair. Ugh. Get those videos of me off this site. I said like no videos of me and junk. Come on people, this is sooo unfair.

Posted by: Chelsea | March 26, 2008 1:45 PM

Umm like hellooo? It is totally not fair to ask me these questions. I will only answer questions about how my Mommy is like totally super cool and stuff. Daddy and I are like going to have this web site shut down and stuff for totally allowing a discussion about me. This is like totally unfair. Ugh. Get those videos of me off this site. I said like no videos of me and junk. Come on people, this is sooo unfair.

Posted by: Chelsea | March 26, 2008 1:45 PM

Sure it's a fair question but not really sure if she would have provided an honest answer. Remember, the apples don't fall far from the tree.

Posted by: Cam | March 26, 2008 1:45 PM

How can this possibly be relevant to the real issues that face this country? The Washington Post used to be a real paper. Why do you bother repeating this nonsense?

Posted by: CTurner | March 26, 2008 1:45 PM

If you want to run for public office then your life is fair game. If Ms. Clinton wishes not to answer certain questions while campaigning for her mother, it's her prerogative. However, entertaining a notion that we should self-censor because someone may feel a given question is in bad taste, is total bunk.
Playing politics is like wresting a pig. You both end up getting dirty, but the pig actually likes it...

Posted by: TooBoCu | March 26, 2008 1:45 PM

How many people did John McCain KILL dropping bombs? Were the Vietnamese justified in torturing him?
How does his daughter feel about the people her father filled?

Short answer NO!

Posted by: Jack | March 26, 2008 1:46 PM

I am a hard core conservative republican and even I can see that this question is unfair in any way, shape or form. It's no one's freaking business.

Posted by: Bruce | March 26, 2008 1:46 PM

Would the media allow Michelle Obama to take questions only from students and not the media? There is a double standard at play here with respect to the Clinton campaign:

The former President gets "running mate" treatment complete with live updates of his speeches while Chelsea dictates "special rules" during her appearances. The press should ignore both surrogates and focus more attention on the candidates.

Posted by: John - Columbus, OH | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM

Chelsea's a breath of fresh air compared to the Bushbrats. Bush's two girls are HIDEOUS (and stupid).

My opinion is... ask whatever you want. Some questions reveal more about the questioner than the questionee.

The truth is, you can't ask the moronic media to stop being moronic. Even if they were capable of it, they would still concern themselves with nonissues, pretending that they're of major importance.

We don't have an independent media in this police state known as the USA, so really, who cares what they say or do. Those of us with brains tuned them out and turned them off already. For those poor schmucks who are still watching the garbage that passes for news, you're wasting your time.

Come away.

Posted by: Yes | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM

Of course its "fair". This is a political campaign, and Chelsea is definitely campaigning.

Posted by: Matt | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM

No Ask her father

Posted by: TTT | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM

Sure it is fair to ask Chelsea about the Monica situation. It is also fair for her to refuse to answer the question like she did. My question for Chelsea is - what do you remember about landing in Tuzla?

Posted by: Boog | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Why is this even a topic of discussion? Isn't it possible to talk about substantive issues? Lewinsky was the media's excuse to not have to discuss substantive issues in the first place, and that's what it is again.

MONICA LEWSINSKY IS NOT A VALID TOPIC OF CONVERSATION WITHIN A POLITICAL CONTEXT!

Posted by: korbas | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Quote: ""So HRC needs to decide, is it more important to HRC to send her daughter out on the campaign trail or does she love her daughter more than the thought of being president.""

Well, we all know the answer to that one.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM

With this hyper-structured, totally programmed campaign--with every word and mouth twitch vetted and practiced, how can any of you believe this was NOT a question the handlers prepared Chelsea for? Truth is, she needs to go back and practice some more.

Posted by: rodney | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM

A more appropriate question would have been:

Since your Mother did NOT have a security clearance during her years as first lady, how can she claim superiority over her rival on national security issues.

Posted by: TheyAllStink | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Chelsea's rude response shows she's a chip off the old block. I'll be glad when the Clintons go away.

Posted by: Phil | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM

I didn't read every comment, so I apologize if this has been addressed - but there is a a key difference between Chelsea and the Bush twins. Chelsea is actively campaigning for her mother. The Bush twins (perhaps for obvious reasons) have never been part of their father's presidential campaigns. If Chelsea is going to campaign, all questions are fair game. She is a well educated adult who is politically savvy enough to know these issues will come up. How she responds is a different issue. If I were her, I wouldn't respond. But that doesn't mean the question should be off limits.

Posted by: Narie | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM

If you are going to campaign, you have to be prepared for any question. Everyone who learns to campaign learns that your answer does not have to be to the question asked. A better answer could have started "My mother's campaign has always been about issues and experience." I believe they call it deflection. If you open the floor to questions, expect every question. Sally Quinn is right. "We're not turning off the cameras." Get used to it.

Posted by: Vinny | March 26, 2008 1:49 PM

It doesn't raise any interesting question at all.

It is just gossip, and dirt journalism for the WaPo to go down this road.

Why not ask Jenna what it was like growing up with an alcoholic father?

Posted by: Barry from Alaska | March 26, 2008 1:49 PM

Who cares?

This is not important, should not have been asked, nor been answered. Let's talk about real issues.

I am a Republican and I approved this comment!

Posted by: Russ | March 26, 2008 1:49 PM

Chelsea Campaigning, So all questions are allowed.
It Is Better To seat at home if she doesn't love question about Lewinski. Elections are Toy Craybaby.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:50 PM

With all of the hoopla involving Barack Obama and his pastor, I think that we are forgetting some of the most profound articles of the constitution, Freedom of Speech and most importantly, The Separation of Church and State!
Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs.
In the United States, separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by the U.S. President Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

Thomas Jefferson says: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship...

We owe account to none other for our faith or our worship!..... WOW!.....that means that we can worship wherever or with whom ever we choose.....according Thomas Jefferson...

We can worship God, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, or Atheism, and it should not interfere or be an issue regarding our political experience and the potential to lead this country....

So why is the media crucifying Barack for being in his church for 20 years and not leaving?....
It's none of their business what Obama does on Sunday's in the church! It is a personal choice that we all have a right to worship or not to worship at anyplace with any congregation.....so let's move on!...

Chelsea Clinton was asked by a student yesterday at Butler University about the Monica Lewinsky affair and her family...she promptly answered the student that "it was none of her business!"....good for Chelsea!...she is right...it is personal!...

And guess what, Barack's worship is personal, so why is the media, and Hillary Clinton commenting on his personal choice & place of worship.... everday of the week....it is really old news now...

SHAME on Hillary for bringing it up...she should have made the same statement that her daughter made...... "basically it is none of my business mr. reporter, this subject is between Mr. Obama and his personal choice"

James Madison says: "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities"....


Posted by: docdwb | March 26, 2008 1:50 PM

Chelsea Campaigning, So all questions are allowed.
It Is Better To seat at home if she doesn't love question about Lewinski. Elections are Toy Craybaby.

Posted by: GANDRAX | March 26, 2008 1:50 PM

And the same goes for Tuzla. Lewinsky, Tuzla...what does ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ACTUAL POLITICS!?!?!

NOTHING!!! IT'S A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME!!!

People discuss these things because they cannot or do not want to discuss energy policy, the budget, the economy, or other topics intelligently. Either they're stupid, or ignorant, or both.

Stop discussing things that don't have any bearing one way or another. Bleah.

Posted by: korbas | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM

The question should have been directed to Mrs. Clinton, not Chelsea, son's and daughter's do not have to answer for their parents mistakes and should not be accounted for their credebility.

Posted by: J de Leon | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM

Yes, it is fair. He asked if she thought that it hurt her mother's credibility, not about the affair itself. Chelsea is putting herself out there, she should have expected it.

Posted by: whocares | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM

Chelsea, this is where you are wrong. When the American president is having extramarital affairs in the Oval Office, it damn well is our business.

Posted by: Laura | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM

Yes it brings of their ecthics to light.
Remember Mcain was just called to explain if their was an inaprotiate relationship only with the clintons their have been numeruse what an exaple for our kids!

Posted by: ike | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM

Finally, the Clintons are getting a dose of their own Imodium!

Posted by: Shiv | March 26, 2008 1:52 PM

I am not sure if it was right for that question to be asked, but it is really crazy that some people have said it would be appropriate to ask questions of Obama's daughters if it is okay to ask questions of Chelsea, who is a grown woman out on the campaign trail for her mother. It is hard to debate these things when you have to sift through all the garbage that some people will post.

Posted by: Law 71 | March 26, 2008 1:52 PM

Absolutely, 100% fair game.

If the Clintons are going to pimp out their young-faced daughter, which is EXACTLY what it is, they have no business complaining about the questions she gets asked.

Posted by: Despair2008 | March 26, 2008 1:52 PM

If Chelsea was there to field questions then that's what she should be prepared to receive. This article is targeting the suitability of a specific question which still generates some controversy. While it is true that Chelsea is entitled to withhold her opinion on the Lewinsky matter, the fact still stands that she is representing her mother on the campaign trail, so she is subject to whatever question her audience is able to ask, and rightfully so, no matter how distasteful or appropriate. It is Chelsea's right to decide on how and if an answer is warranted. I think her verbal and noverbal response said a great deal about her feelings on the matter.

Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 1:52 PM

A better question might be to ask why people think Hillary was wrong with her comment about there being a "vast right-wing conspiracy. They should read *Blinded by the Right* by David Brock, who admits to being a part of the conspiracy and details it. The conspiracy wasn't about the sex, it was about the entire multi-million dollar effort to discredit the Clintons by any means possible, fair or foul.
No, Richard Mellon Scaife didn't hire Monica to seduce the president, but according to Brock he spent millions to support the expensive and almost totally unproductive Whitewater investigation, and the expensive but unsucessful effort to remove the president by impeachment.

Posted by: Barbarossa | March 26, 2008 1:53 PM

All's fair is love, war and politics. If you can't stand the heat...........get out.

Posted by: airedale | March 26, 2008 1:53 PM

If she can't stand the heat, she should stay out of the kitchen. Oh wait, who was it who said that again?

Posted by: Shinons | March 26, 2008 1:53 PM

It is fair and relevant.

If you believe Hillary was no aware about the affair that took place while she was in the same building, then she displays a disturbing lack of awareness and perception.

If, on the other hand, you believe she knew but helped Bill deny it, She show a willingness to mislead the Country if it serves her interests.... And haven't we gotten enough of that from Bush?

Posted by: mwortman | March 26, 2008 1:53 PM

The question refers to her mother lying about a "vast,right wing conspiracy" to cover-up the Lewinsky scandal. The question is not asking her to defend her father's indiscretions. The question is fair. But, it should be asked of Hillary. Chelsea appears to be of infantile intellect and should not be speaking for the campaign.

Posted by: Rico | March 26, 2008 1:53 PM

I feel that since she is standing up for the candidate then she should be able to answer all questions. This is a very public office and I see nothing off limits about this.

Posted by: chuck | March 26, 2008 1:53 PM

I absolutely, This is a political campaign, and Chelsea is definitely campaigning.

Posted by: Caca | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Yes

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Yes.

Posted by: Gene | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

The questioner is simply of low character himself!

Posted by: John | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

***The Bush twins (perhaps for obvious reasons) have never been part of their father's presidential campaigns. Narie | March 26, 2008 01:48 PM***

wrong.

Bush daughters visit Iowa, encourage ISU Republicans
By Jeanne Chapin
Daily Staff Writer
Issue date: 9/10/04 Section: News
The Bush twins toured Iowa Thursday, making stops at the three major public universities to talk to students about their father's campaign.

Jenna and Barbara Bush stopped at Iowa State after visiting Northern Iowa and Iowa.

...Jenna and Barbara joined the campaign after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin and Yale, respectively.


Posted by: linda | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

The questioner is simply of low character himself!

Posted by: John | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Clinton - quit the race. All you do is damage the party.

Posted by: anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Clinton - quit the race. All you do is damage the party.

Posted by: anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Clinton - quit the race. All you do is damage the party.

Posted by: anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM

What possible answer could Chelsea give that would in any way be of benefit to citizens attempting to decide for whom to vote?

Not fair. Not appropriate. Not cool. In fact, just slimy and obnoxious.

But it was great the way Chelsea simply told the questioner, "None of your business."

Posted by: Patrick | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

The Lewinsky issue. is none of anyones business. It has nothing to do with you or I. That is a private matter. what goes on in all of our private lives should remain private.

Posted by: Chris | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Yes ... fair question

and

fair answer.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

The question might have been silly or tasteless but if you run for president you can not pretend to lock out any question regarding a public scandal such as the Lewinsky affair. After all at least 2 of the main characters will be back in the White House if Hillary should win the presidency and that fact alone should both arise people's curiosity and make fair any questions about their past permanence there.

To ask Chelsey was certainly rude but she took it well enough and if she was not prepared to listen to such questions she would have simply refused the role of surrogate candidate.

I see nothing unfair in asking her opinion and I believe she has all the rights to don't respond. All in all this is a lot of noise about nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Yes ... fair question

and

fair answer.

Posted by: bill in ny | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Yes, a valid question which was asked by a potential voter to an adult which is campaigning for a Presidential nominee. Her answer reflects the entitlement mentality that is inbred into the Clintons. If some are offended by the question, too bad. Many of us are offended by the answer abd the smugness that has been allowed to permeate throughout the Clinton family. Why are they above certain questions which pertain to the time they were hired by the people and the things they did in the peoples house?

Posted by: Bob | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Of course it is fair. For three reasons.

First, it is fair to ask anyone taking a public facing role in the Clinton campagin any question relating to Clinton's candidacy. No one would have batted an eye if Mark Penn or Howard Wolfson had been asked this same question.

Second, she, along with her mother and Monica, is one of the three women MOST affected by this event and one of the most qualified to speak of its ramifications.

Third, she is an adult who has chosen of her own volition to be public about politics and her mother's campaign. This wasn't blind-siding a little girl, it was asking an adult, public, willing participant in the campaign a question.

This is what happens when you put yourself out there.

Posted by: Wesley, Texas | March 26, 2008 1:56 PM

Yes, I guess in a free democracy anyone is allowed to ask any question they want to anyone they wish (one might want to be careful in court). Public persons, especially public persons involved in election campaigns should expect almost anything--especially these days. It is, however, everyones perogative how they wish to answer--if they want to respond at all. Regardless of how anyone stands in this particular presidential race, one has to respect Chelsey Clinton's response, "it's none of your business," to such a poor question--put forth in such poor taste! Go girl! You did just fine!

Posted by: Rocky Burge | March 26, 2008 1:56 PM

I think you need to rephrase the question to "Is it fair to ask someone how is actively campaigning for and representing Hilary Clinton about Lewinsky?" If this were the question, the only answer is Yes it is appropriate. It is even more appropriate since Hillary claims her experience as First Lady gives her more "experience" then anyone else. The scandal paralyzed the White House while it was going on and it is very relevant to know how she handled that crisis and got the work she was responsible for accomplished, during and after it was resolved.

Now the question is whether or not Chelsea should be asked the question. My opinion is that it was appropriate since she is actively campaigning for and representing Hilary Clinton. Chelsea herself made the decision to campaign and she was at a campaign function representing Hilary. The question would have been asked if Hilary, Chelsea or any other representative of her campaign was there.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 1:56 PM

I think you need to rephrase the question to "Is it fair to ask someone how is actively campaigning for and representing Hilary Clinton about Lewinsky?" If this were the question, the only answer is Yes it is appropriate. It is even more appropriate since Hillary claims her experience as First Lady gives her more "experience" then anyone else. The scandal paralyzed the White House while it was going on and it is very relevant to know how she handled that crisis and got the work she was responsible for accomplished, during and after it was resolved.

Now the question is whether or not Chelsea should be asked the question. My opinion is that it was appropriate since she is actively campaigning for and representing Hilary Clinton. Chelsea herself made the decision to campaign and she was at a campaign function representing Hilary. The question would have been asked if Hilary, Chelsea or any other representative of her campaign was there.

Posted by: SkipB | March 26, 2008 1:56 PM

The question was not about the Lewinski scandal. The question was about her mother's credibility being tarnished when Hillary Clinton said that the scandal was a right wing consiracy. (There may have been a right wing consiracy to make the scandal public, but the affair turned out to be factual). In light of the recent "sniper" mis-speak, I think that this was a valid question about Hillary Clinton's credibility. If Chelsea Clinton can campaign for her mother, she needs to be able to handle the questions. I disagree with Chelsea Clinton's response. I believe that Hillary Clinton's credibility is everyone's business

Posted by: Pete | March 26, 2008 1:56 PM

It's a fair question to ask, considering that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly pointed to other events of her husband's presidency as reasons we should now support her candidacy. Chelsea Clinton could have simply answered "yes," "no," or "no comment." To imply that the question was out of bounds is rather disingenuous.

Posted by: Jeff | March 26, 2008 1:57 PM

In memoriam 24.03.1999.-11,06.1999.

Is It Fair to Ask Chelsea Clinton About Lewinsky?
Is It Fair to Bomb Serbia 1999. and kill 3500 people to hide a love affair and impeachment?

What is guilt Milica Rakic-Belgrade-Serbia, 3 years old, killed on chamber pot, and 90 other children?

Is It Fair to Remember? Is It Allowed?

Why?

Posted by: cox | March 26, 2008 1:57 PM

The question is "fair" because is comes under the heading "free speech". Is it a good question? I don't think so. If Hillary Clinton's credibility was hurt by the Lewinsky affair, it's hard for me to see HOW it was hurt. Someone cheating on us is embarrassing and painful, but why should it damage our credibilty? More importantly, however, the fact that people - the questioner, Chelsea (who clearly tried to get mileage out of being offended by dramatizing the situation as unprecedented), and the news media - focus on this kind of trivia reveals how empty our political world has become. It's telling how at the end of the news clip (above) on the exchange between Chelsea and the student, the reporter says she didn't want the question about Lewinsky to be the last one, so she took one more, on global warming. Now her answer to THAT might have been interesting, but, of course, in our infotainment media world, it just ain't newsworthy.

Posted by: Daniel | March 26, 2008 1:58 PM

Quote: "And the same goes for Tuzla. Lewinsky, Tuzla...what does ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ACTUAL POLITICS!?!?!"

I wouldn't go there if I were you. Tuzla is very important. The films showed Sen. Clinton saying they had to duck and run from sniper fire, while the film showed the peaceful welcoming committee and the little girl present. Then Hillary says she was "sleep deprived and "misspoke".

That is very important as it shows her to be a liar and not for the first time. When will she learn that records and films follow her every move and she can't lie about them. I worry for her sanity.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 1:58 PM

Of course it's fair. Anything is fair game when you hold public office, especially the most prestigious office of the nation. It should, as always, be tactful though. The question was in fair context- must be very embarrassing for Chelsea.

Posted by: Michael Hall Gainesville,FL | March 26, 2008 1:58 PM

Fair question, fair game. She's a grown adult who made the choice to go out and campaign for her mom. Nothing should be off limits. I find it distrubing that (1) no one has asked her such a question before considering that the Lewinsky affair took up so much of the nation's time and press coverage - a clear indication that she is being babied and (2) as big of a scandal as it was, she didn't have a better answer prepared. That was a prime opportunity for her to turn it around and show her mother's enduring strength and ability to move past difficult times and instead she got defensive and offended. And why? Because she EXPECTED to be handled with care and insulated from such questions. Uh-uh. No more. It's time she knows she's no different than anyone else who steps into the political game.

Posted by: Liz W. | March 26, 2008 1:59 PM

Why is the media pursuing this? Are there not sufficient concerns to be investigating such as the cost of the war, the tanking economy, the housing crisis?

Is it the obligation of the Washington Post to compete with supermarket tabloids such as the Huffington Post?

Or is it simply the many tentacles of the Obama slime machine automatically snatching at anything to feed its appetite for scandal? I wonder how those same tentacles never seem to reach the private lives of MLK, Jr., Ted and John Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, etc.

Sorry, only the Clintons are fair game in these sorry attacks.

Posted by: ichief | March 26, 2008 1:59 PM

Some of you need to do your research. The young man who asked the question is a supporter of Hillary. He claims he wanted Chelsea to have the opportunity to show Hillary's toughness.
Personally, I thought her rebuke was too sharp, but she is just like her mom and dad - abrasive when bothered by inferior people (99% of the American population).
How a president acts when faced with tough situations and family turmoil is important. So is lying, putting yourself in a vulnurable position for blackmail or pergury.

Posted by: Charles | March 26, 2008 1:59 PM

Can we expect questions such as this to be poised to McCain's daughter regarding her father's infidelity while still married to her mother? Would it have been fair to ask Bush's daughters about their parents marital problems due to his drinking? I doubt the questioner expected and answer but was meerly titillated with the opportunity to ask it.

Posted by: G Brian | March 26, 2008 1:59 PM

Wait a minute. This daughter is out there stroking the public, asking for support and money all in return for our vote. For something so valuable as our vote, why can't the public can't examine / ask probing questions? If you don't want questions to be asked and accept the pressure of public life, stay out of the race and quit stroking and hiding behind 'slick words'.

Posted by: Robert D. Bardos | March 26, 2008 2:00 PM

If you are going to champion the cause of the Mother. Anything is fair game. If you cannot take the heat, then get out of fire.

Hillary was present in the white house the entire time of the alleged affair. Did it make her a stronger person?

Posted by: Mimi | March 26, 2008 2:00 PM

Tell me, would we think a male candidate appear weak if his wife committed adultery and he stood by? Doubtful. He would be viewed as such a great guy, understanding, blah, blah.
This has nothing to do with the campaign. Standing by your man is not up for vote. It's a personal choice.
Honestly, people get a grip. Get your heads out of Britney Spear land. There are people dying from a lack of very basic necessities outside of an overindulged Hollywood life.
Go, Hillary!

Posted by: rose | March 26, 2008 2:01 PM

No, but it's fair to ask Hillary Clinton so she can explain if this incident influenced her most recent quote: "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." Thus, Obama is guilty by association, but staying married to someone who has had extramarital affairs is OK....very calculated choce of words.

Posted by: Gander | March 26, 2008 2:01 PM

If the shoe fits....and if she's working for the campaign then she should most CERTAINLY expect ANYTHING.

Posted by: JS | March 26, 2008 2:01 PM

Sure it's fair game. Americans obviously couldn't care less about politics, foreign policy, taxes, morality, ethics, right and wrong, or anything else of substance.

If we Americans actually discussed anything of substance in our political contests, we would all soon realize that the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly the same and there's not a lick of difference between them. When that happens, the shell game they've constructed to shield themselves from the people will all come crashing down and we'll all actually have to start getting involved more substantively.

So of course it's fair game. It's fair game as long as we, the people, don't demand anything more from our politicians. Every time we validate their stupid games by voting for them, we give them all the incentive they need to ratchet up this nonsense the next time around.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm still a bit miffed about having to explain what oral sex is to my 12 year old daughter because the Republicans and the media decided it was okay to say "blow job" in the 6:00 o'clock news every day for years. Ive always been grateful to the Republicans for that little lesson in how they define the morality they are always trying to cram down other people's throats.

Posted by: Antirepublodemocratican | March 26, 2008 2:01 PM

She could have answered the question simply and politely by saying "I do not have an answer to that.", or "I would have no comments on that." and moved on. She answered the question angrily like her parents and that only made her look bad. We cannot be sure if the question was posted to embarrassment her. Some are quick to jump to a conclusion that this is a political attack and started blaming her rivals. Calm down. It is blown out of proportion by Chelsea and her supporters.

Posted by: pete | March 26, 2008 2:02 PM

When her parents first took office I agreed that the child should be protected from the press. However, today she is a young adult - one who is speaking on behalf of her mother and I think she should be expected to answer all questions put to her regarding her mother's credibility, accomplishments, etc.

I heard a pundit say with regard to Chelsea's response to the question, "Wow! She's good - a chip off the old block!" I have to agree - she is a chip off the old block - she even remembered the Bosnia trip just as her mother described - dodging bullets and running with their heads down to safety! They taught her well - now SHE lies as well as they do!

Posted by: ifyoucan'ttaketheheat | March 26, 2008 2:02 PM

The question is fair because Hillary should have divorced Bill Clinton for his infedilties (plural). It was not just a one time fling - there was a pattern established by Bill Clinton.
Did Hillary stay so her political career would not be ended? Is it a marriage of convenience? If so, just tell us. The many charades of Hillary Clinton are legion. Chelsea is a grown up now - gloves off if she is stumping for her Mom. Chelsea knows the good, bad, and ugly.
Having said that the question was fair - I also believe her answer was fair and honest.
Her parents could learn a lot from Chelsea.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:02 PM

The question is fair because Hillary should have divorced Bill Clinton for his infedilties (plural). It was not just a one time fling - there was a pattern established by Bill Clinton.
Did Hillary stay so her political career would not be ended? Is it a marriage of convenience? If so, just tell us. The many charades of Hillary Clinton are legion. Chelsea is a grown up now - gloves off if she is stumping for her Mom. Chelsea knows the good, bad, and ugly.
Having said that the question was fair - I also believe her answer was fair and honest.
Her parents could learn a lot from Chelsea.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM

The question is fair because Hillary should have divorced Bill Clinton for his infedilties (plural). It was not just a one time fling - there was a pattern established by Bill Clinton.
Did Hillary stay so her political career would not be ended? Is it a marriage of convenience? If so, just tell us. The many charades of Hillary Clinton are legion. Chelsea is a grown up now - gloves off if she is stumping for her Mom. Chelsea knows the good, bad, and ugly.
Having said that the question was fair - I also believe her answer was fair and honest.
Her parents could learn a lot from Chelsea.

Posted by: tomsawyer49@hotmail.com | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM

The question is fair because Hillary should have divorced Bill Clinton for his infedilties (plural). It was not just a one time fling - there was a pattern established by Bill Clinton.
Did Hillary stay so her political career would not be ended? Is it a marriage of convenience? If so, just tell us. The many charades of Hillary Clinton are legion. Chelsea is a grown up now - gloves off if she is stumping for her Mom. Chelsea knows the good, bad, and ugly.
Having said that the question was fair - I also believe her answer was fair and honest.
Her parents could learn a lot from Chelsea.

Posted by: tomsawyer49@hotmail.com | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM

Who cares anyway?
When it's all said and done, it doesn't even amount to a hill of beans.

Posted by: Goldie | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM

Quote: "I wonder how those same tentacles never seem to reach the private lives of MLK, Jr., Ted and John Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, etc."

What planet have you been on? It has all been hashed and re-hashed.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM

Who cares anyway?
When it's all said and done, it doesn't even amount to a hill of beans.

Posted by: Goldie | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM

Sally Quinn hit the nail on the head. It is silly to suggest that the question shouldn't be asked because she's their daughter. She's 28 years old, and arguably the second highest "surrogate" in the campaign behind Bill. That she shouldn't be asked is ridiculous.

I think it's fine for her to say, "I don't talk about that." But that's not really what the tone and style of her answer said; it said 'you are rude to have asked that inappropriate question.' For that, I think she was wrong.

She could have said politely, "you know, I just don't discuss that issue." Or she could have said, "I never found that whole issue to be appropriate media fodder; it's a private issue and I don't discuss it."

Or better still, to the question of whether her mother's credibility was damaged by the scandal, she could simply have said, "No." That would have been genius -- and, presumably, true.

Posted by: DJ Lyon | March 26, 2008 2:04 PM

If Sally Quinn would be even half as tough on Bush as she is on Chelsea Clinton, she would have some credibility. How disingenuous it is to be an attack dog with Clinton and a lap dog with Bush.

Posted by: T. J. Paulson | March 26, 2008 2:04 PM

I don't see why it is not fair. She is an adult, to start with. She is campaigning on behalf of her mother. If integrity, among other things is on the issue, then anything that has to do with it could be asked to anyone who campaigns on behalf of the candidates. She is part of the Clinton campaign, hence it is fair that to ask her any question about integrity, crdibility and so forth ...

Posted by: Jerry | March 26, 2008 2:04 PM

If you are out campaigning for someone, you are an adult and you have knowledge of an event, the question is fair game. Just because Chelsea is the daughter has no bearing on whether or not the question should be asked, she is and has been an adult for quite some time. Campaigning for her mother is going to bring these kinds of questions and she should reply.

Posted by: Scooter | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM

No. Its nothing to do with fair. Its about etiquette, good taste, morals. Not appropriate. In fact, just obnoxious. The ¿reporter? just wanted his 15 minutes of fame. We as Americans are better than those types of questions.

Posted by: Richard | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM

Any question that is fair game for any active campaigner is fair game for Chelsea. She's been campaigning up a storm. The Clinton camp seems to view her as their secret weapon against Obama's youth/college support.

While that question might have seemed like gratuitous mudslinging a few days ago, it now seems like a logical response to Hillary's claim that she would have walked out of Wright's church. Hillary's self-righteous insistence that she would not stick around with anyone who behaved in an objectionable way begs the question: what is she doing with a serial adulterer who publicly humiliated her (and the Democratic party)?

Posted by: DoTheMath | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM

The question is not whether it's "fair." The question is whether it's relevant. And I thought that the media's breathless examination of Hilary's calendar to determine her whereabouts during Lewinsky encounters was a new low for "journalism." But obviously, there is no place too low to go, especially on a slow news day. BTW, people are dying in Irag. And Darfur.

Posted by: Peg Manning | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM

Quote: "I don't know about anyone else but I'm still a bit miffed about having to explain what oral sex is to my 12 year old daughter because the Republicans and the media decided it was okay to say "blow job" in the 6:00 o'clock news every day for years. Ive always been grateful to the Republicans for that little lesson in how they define the morality they are always trying to cram down other people's throats."

Hmmm, I listen to the news every day and I've never heard that phrase used. What channel do you and your daughter watch. And no, I'm not a republican.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:07 PM

When one desires the power and control in any Public Office, then learn, even on the campaign trail, to also accept the accountability and responsibility that goes along with it.
Yes, Chelsea Clinton should answer this, and any even tougher questions that will surely come up as the candidates take off the "white gloves" and put on the "other color gloves" (politically correct answer).

Posted by: Max Hartman | March 26, 2008 2:08 PM

Absolutely yes.

The question was not asked in a derogatory way. The fact is the whole Lewinsky affair speaks volumes about the core beliefs of those that are striving to run our country. While Chelsea's reluctance to answer such questions is understandable, the fact that she has chosen too actively campaign for her mother and in doing so her "daughter" status does not exempt her from being asked questions that have relevancy to her mothers ability to lead. If it is fair to question Mr Obama's abilities because of his association with a priest who has somewhat radical views and then turn around and act like the antics of Mrs. Clinton husband and former president should be exempt from scrutiny? If you or campaign staff want my vote you had be better be willing to answer any question I put forth.

Posted by: meatpuppet | March 26, 2008 2:08 PM

Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton,Jeb Bush, Chelsea Clinton.....Can you see where this is going?

Posted by: orlon | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

Her credibility was not damaged because of the scandal... rather by her rushing to blame the "vast right-wing conspiracy" - come on, Hillary, if you were still in denial about your your deviant husband at that time, how can think anything other than your brain is a black hole?????

Yes - your credibility has always been in question.

Posted by: SG | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

It's salacious, it's titillating it's not relevant unless you consider People magazine hard news.

Posted by: Tony | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

"The ¿reporter? just wanted his 15 minutes of fame. We as Americans are better than those types of questions."


Posted by: Richard | March 26, 2008 02:06 PM

What reporter, he wasn't a reporter. Get with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

I would've asked her how she felt about the brutal rape of Juanita Broderick. Or about Whitewater.

Posted by: Carl Spackler | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

The question reflects that the questioner is a fool, and has no ability to determine what is relevant to today's times. The only answer worth giving is that Sen. Clintonlived through and survived a hurtful personal crisis within her family, and is able to focus on more important issues that affect everyone.

Anonymous 1

Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

The question reflects that the questioner is a fool, and has no ability to determine what is relevant to today's times. The only answer worth giving is that Sen. Clintonlived through and survived a hurtful personal crisis within her family, and is able to focus on more important issues that affect everyone.

Anonymous 1

Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

Yes, it will be proper for Chelsea to talk to Lewinsky.... she may learn how to perform oral sex, enjoy it and share it with her mother.

Posted by: Jv | March 26, 2008 2:10 PM

The Lewinsky affair was, unfortunately, the defining event of the Clinton presidency.

Hillary is running on the basis of that presidency.

Chelsea is campaigning for her mother, who is running on the basis of that candidacy.

So... yes. It's an extremely uncomfortable question. But it's a fair one.

Posted by: Dave | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

The question reflects that the questioner is a fool, and has no ability to determine what is relevant to today's times. The only answer worth giving is that Sen. Clinton lived through and survived a hurtful personal crisis within her family, and is able to focus on more important issues that affect everyone.

Anonymous 1

Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

The question reflects that the questioner is a fool, and has no ability to determine what is relevant to today's times. The only answer worth giving is that Sen. Clinton lived through and survived a hurtful personal crisis within her family, and is able to focus on more important issues that affect everyone.

Anonymous 1

Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

The question reflects that the questioner is a fool, and has no ability to determine what is relevant to today's times. The only answer worth giving is that Sen. Clinton lived through and survived a hurtful personal crisis within her family, and is able to focus on more important issues that affect everyone.

Anonymous 1

Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

The question reflects that the questioner is a fool, and has no ability to determine what is relevant to today's times. The only answer worth giving is that Sen. Clinton lived through and survived a hurtful personal crisis within her family, and is able to focus on more important issues that affect everyone.

Anonymous 1

Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

The question reflects that the questioner is a fool, and has no ability to determine what is relevant to today's times. The only answer worth giving is that Sen. Clinton lived through and survived a hurtful personal crisis within her family, and is able to focus on more important issues that affect everyone.

Anonymous 1

Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

It is a FAIR question about Hillary's "judgement" as a carpet bagger now trying to become the carpet bagger president. When is she going to apologize to Monica and all the women she bashed? Isn't that about character? Has Hillary no shame. Are Hillary and Bill willing to put Chelsea through this forever - or is Chelsea now addicted to the "power" too. It is not a private family affair when the President of the USA lies to the Grand Jury and molests impressionable ladies young enough to be his daughter in the Oval Office. Character and Judgement are the issue - IS

Posted by: SpeedyCampbell | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

No. Kudos to Chelsea telling like she sees it - "None of your business"- Love the response.

Posted by: Stacey | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM

All questions are fair game and Chelsea should have been prepared to answer that (seemingly obvious) question with my dignity. Instead, her answer was cutting and I truly believe that it did greater damage than good to her mother's campaign. She may as well have not campaigned in any of those 70 schools at this point. It will be interesting to see the spin that Camp Hillary puts on this...

Posted by: Ken | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM

If it's not "our business," then Hillary should not be running to be "our President."

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM

yes its fair but not necessarily in good taste. its a better question for Hillary and not Chelsea. I think chelsea should have addressed it more gracefully - like saying it was a personal family matter that was in the past and her mom is focused on the future of the country..yada yada...

Posted by: rb | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM

If it's not "our business," then Hillary should not be running to be "our President."

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM

If Hillary's credibility was tarnished by the scandal?
It's a question you could ask a the child of a candidate who isn't serving in Iraq but is serving to get their father/mother elected president.
As always the press and the editors of the Post got it wrong. The question wasn't about Monica and as such wasn't inappropriate. The question asked by a male who is a Hillary supporter (though I am not) and was asked to give Chelsea a chance to address an issue of honesty and leadership. Please watch the clip to hear what the question was:
Evan Strange: "I asked for Chelsea's opinion on the criticism of her Mother that how she handled the Monica scandal may have been a sign of weakness and she may not be a strong enough candidate to be President of the United States."
It seems Evan's friends asks him what makes Hillary such a strong leader cite her handling of the Monica scandal as a sign of weakness. He didn't ask the question to cause trouble but to give Chelsea an opportunity to say what makes Hillary such a strong candidate.

Posted by: Jon K | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM

How will I be able to afford to send my child to college? Can I afford to get sick? How to turn this economy around? What is being done to grow jobs? How will we regain the respect of the world? What is the plan for reducing traffic congestion? How will I be able to keep food on my families table?

The question asked was stupid, shabby, and offensive. This is not what Americans care about.

Posted by: Not only unfair but NOT USEFUL | March 26, 2008 2:12 PM

Chelsea's blunt answer tells me she has not internalized the Lewinsky episode.

Chelsea is no longer a little girl and she is campaigning for her mother. Her reply to the question shows the Clintonian arrogance and political clumsiness of the Hillary Coronation parade.

This thing was supposed to be wrapped by Feb.5. Hillary was on a vanity cruise ride to the Democratic nomination until Iowa got in the way. Hillary was so unready on day one that her campaign became bankrupt and staff started working for free. Then came the $5 million loan as Ron Burkle paid Bubba $20 million for the fact that Bill is so wonderful.

Then Hillary brings in Chelsea to reinforce the fast-sinking Billary jalopy. And Chelsea will not accept any heat, while at the kitchen.

Ready on day one? Yeah and I was born yesterday.

Posted by: piktor | March 26, 2008 2:13 PM

Is it fair game to ask her how scared she was in Bosnia when snipers tried to shoot at her and her mother?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:13 PM

He asked it to get famous. Because you would put him on TV and ask him why he asked the stupid question.

It is NONE of HIS business. He asked a very inappropriate question about a women who almost destroyed her parent's marriage.

We ALL know that Hillary stuck by her husband in the lowest of his personal points in his life. She has been with him through it all. Not only does this show us what type of person she is: committed, honest, loyal, courageous and strong; but she will be a phenomenal President!

Posted by: Celeste | March 26, 2008 2:14 PM

is it fair? sure...but is it relevant to whether or not her mom will be a good president? probably not. the kids asking the question was a Clinton supporter (which i am not), and he was giving her a chance to say some good things...he underestimated her...bottom line, she is not the 'political pro' that her mom is (i.e. she can't lie thru her teeth while smiling, and keep smiling when asked a question that makes her blood boil, then when off camera curse and scream and be nasty)

Posted by: texas tarheel | March 26, 2008 2:15 PM

That question if fair to anyone in Hillary's camp who is actively canvassing for her. The fact that she is Hillary's daughter gives her special position to comment on it.

The position her mother is aspiring for is the highest in the land. The question is relevant to her ability to function in the white house either directly or indirectly. Since Hillary has not answered that question, it is fair to asked that question.

Chelsea's response, however, is totally inappropriate.

Posted by: RM | March 26, 2008 2:15 PM

If it's not "our business", then why is Hillary running to be "our President"?

Posted by: Formerrepublican | March 26, 2008 2:16 PM

Does anyone really think that Presidents , kings you name it have not been acting like Bill did. Wake up read some history, biographies, Bill was a no angel but he was little different. read up fools.

Posted by: bigotboy | March 26, 2008 2:16 PM

It is not about being fair; the question should be "is this kind question "relevant" to ask to any candidate or family members who campaign for her/him? It is not our business; and Chelsea handled very well. I believe that the person who asked the question should think before if the personal affair or affairs of a spouse of any candidate has anything to do with the qualifications of a President's job. Have you or anyone during a job interview being asked this kind question? Today, you can even file a law suit for unappropriate questions during in a job interview. We tax payers already paid a lot of money in the past for inquiries on this issue, when they tried to discret a President by his personal affairs ;because, they could not find anything else that could take him out of his position. I believe all the candidates have being passed on the screen of civil/criminal records; so, we need just to vote or not vote who we believe and want to be our Chief Executive to run this country.It is that simple!

Posted by: Lucia | March 26, 2008 2:16 PM

It is not about being fair; the question should be "is this kind question "relevant" to ask to any candidate or family members who campaign for her/him? It is not our business; and Chelsea handled very well. I believe that the person who asked the question should think before if the personal affair or affairs of a spouse of any candidate has anything to do with the qualifications of a President's job. Have you or anyone during a job interview being asked this kind question? Today, you can even file a law suit for unappropriate questions during in a job interview. We tax payers already paid a lot of money in the past for inquiries on this issue, when they tried to discret a President by his personal affairs ;because, they could not find anything else that could take him out of his position. I believe all the candidates have being passed on the screen of civil/criminal records; so, we need just to vote or not vote who we believe and want to be our Chief Executive to run this country.It is that simple!

Posted by: Lucia | March 26, 2008 2:16 PM

If it's not "our business", then why is Hillary running to be "our President"?

Posted by: Formerrepublican | March 26, 2008 2:17 PM

If it's not "our business", then why is Hillary running to be "our President"?

Posted by: Formerrepublican | March 26, 2008 2:17 PM

Asking her is not even relevant. I care about what the candidate (ANY candidate) is going to do to solve our most pressing issues. I don't care about what a "surrogate" thinks about a candidate's reaction to his/her spouse's affair.

Someone earlier mentioned the "Bush Twins", and how they are not asked about Dad's alcoholism, and it's impact on them.

Further, they are not ask about how they've dealt with being an Adult Child of an Alcoholic, or their mother's co-dependency.

As the other poster said, it's a definite double standard.

Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2008 2:17 PM

What a bunch of inane and irrevelant crapola, both in the reporting and the responses. How many of you never had an 'affair'? How many responses were based on political, rather than moral, issues?

The history of the world is rife with leaders who had, and have, 'fidelity' issues. Jefferson fathered children with a slave. Does that make him less of a statesman? Methinks not.

I voted for Bill, and have no regrets. This year I think I will vote for McCain. I base my vote on the candidate's qualifications for the job, not on comments made by 'reporters' who are only looking for their '15 minutes of fame' in a video, and not on the candidate's 'indiscretions'. Silly blog, silly responses. Get real.

Posted by: Don James | March 26, 2008 2:17 PM

You pimp your daughter out so sure its a good question

Posted by: CMN | March 26, 2008 2:18 PM

It's permissible to ask Chelsea (and Michelle and Hillary and Barack and Bill and any campaigner) any question.

It's also permissible for any of them to respond, "What a stupid eff-ing question. Are you a moron?" or simply decline to answer.

Obama, Clinton, and McCain have all done it (declined to answer).

I suspect that anyone who thinks this particular question deserved an answer, long ago made up their mind on the issue.

Posted by: WylieD | March 26, 2008 2:18 PM

Quote: "How will I be able to afford to send my child to college? Can I afford to get sick? How to turn this economy around? What is being done to grow jobs? How will we regain the respect of the world? What is the plan for reducing traffic congestion? How will I be able to keep food on my families table?"

1.=If you work hard. #2.= If you don't get too sick. #3.=Stop living on credit. #4=Illegal immigrants? #5= Stop giving them money. #6=Use mass transportation. @7=Work hard.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 2:18 PM

Chelsea's response was cocky and sassy.

Posted by: tella | March 26, 2008 2:18 PM

The president of the United States slept with an intern half his age. Think about how disgusting that is. If that happened in any other job, he would be out on the street. And rightly so.

Yet Bill Clinton is still hailed as the leader of our party.

This is absolutely our business. And I'm ok with anything that can remind the public of how sleazy and immoral Bill Clinton is.

Posted by: Dave | March 26, 2008 2:18 PM

As a Republican, I say NO! It is not fair to ask a child about parental infidelity. If you want to ask someone, have some spine and ask the participants Bill and Hill. But, to ask their kid about parental infidelity does not provide you with information about Hill's leadership ability. It just shows a lack of class and is just plain mean. In the vast world of questions that could be asked concerning Ms. Clinton's highly questionable leadership abilities, that was the best the questioner could do? I could do a lot better than that.

Posted by: Frank | March 26, 2008 2:19 PM

I think chelsea is ugly!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:19 PM

Absolutely not. Frankly, I think that any infidelity that happens in a marriage is strictly the business of the married couple, unless it involves something actually illegal, such as prostitution. This is something that Bill Clinton should NEVER have had to speak about publicly, and neither should his wife and daughter. People, the sex lives of others are not your business - grow up already and stop being such a bunch of judgmental voyeurs.

Posted by: Susan | March 26, 2008 2:20 PM

Quote: "How many of you never had an 'affair'?"

Me for one of thousands. Speak for yourself.
Morality is still here.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:20 PM

NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

Posted by: RON | March 26, 2008 2:20 PM

Are Democrats going to tout Hillary and Bill as the "best they have to offer" forever. When is America going to get someone with real character and integrity for President? The Clintons have been a blight on the American image for too long. Is there anyone who would believe an untreated sexual pervert has stopped his philandering? Doesn't seem to bother Chelsea. Chelsea is now one of three Clintons on the stump - cramming the questions back down the throats of the media who dares to ask. Next she'll be trashing the young man who asked as one of the right wing republican conspiracy.

Posted by: SpeedyCampbell | March 26, 2008 2:20 PM

puffcat said: "Hey, if Willy, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick didn't want to traumatize their children, they should have stayed out of other people's beds."

What does that say for the traumatized children due to Eisenhower, who couldn't exactly 'complete the mission' with Kay Summersby? An entire generation couldn't get it up due to being such a sad, little victim?

Posted by: backbeat | March 26, 2008 2:21 PM

This is fair game by any measure. To be a surrogate on the campaign trail opens the campaigner up to all questions, even if they don't like the question being asked. It is ridiculous that the press is treating Chelsea as a child when she is getting close to 30 years old. I agree that children should be off limits from the press, but this is a grown woman who is knowingly playing in the big league without any of the consequences associated with hardball campaign realities. Either Chelsea agrees to play the game or she needs to bow out of the arena and leave the campaigning to the professionals.

Posted by: Clint Lorimore | March 26, 2008 2:21 PM

The question was absolutely ridiculous. I like the way Chelsea handled it. Hopefully, the student who asked it will learn some discretion before he goes out into the real world where being unnecessily provacative could get you fired.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:22 PM

She needs to learn to lie as well as Bill and Hillary.

Posted by: rf | March 26, 2008 2:22 PM

Our tax money paid her father's salary, her mother's salary and they're stumping for more. Whether I'm personally interested or not, whatever happens on publicly owned property and committed by public servants falls squarely into public access.

Posted by: lvansloten | March 26, 2008 2:22 PM

I think chelsea is fugly.

Posted by: Lance | March 26, 2008 2:22 PM

I don't think it's appropriate but not for the same reasons as many.
In 1995, when this all started, Chelsea was fifteen years old. You may say that she's an adult now; however, her experience in this matter is viewed through the lens of an adolescent.
I'm sure it's painful for her to reflect on this issue as I'm sure it is for the Bush twins to hear people deride their father. Blood is thicker than water. What kind of response did the questioner expect?

Posted by: Tmary | March 26, 2008 2:23 PM

Lets face the facts, Chelsea gets babied by the press and they accomodate her every whim. If it were a republican's daughter campaigning for her parent she would get crucified every time she made an appearance.

Posted by: Jim | March 26, 2008 2:23 PM

Like her mother she is bitter and ignoring the question ( which was proper as she is campaigning for her mom)and in turn making the questioner feel badly.. they didn't mind asking insulting questions of President Bush in years just gone past.. they just can't handle it- THUS she doesn't deserve to be President!

Posted by: Billy | March 26, 2008 2:23 PM

If she is as good at lying as her mother it won't matter at all.

Posted by: bill | March 26, 2008 2:24 PM

I am a senior at Butler and I was sitting in the front row when the question was asked.
I am not voting for Hilary, but I do not think that question was appropriate for Chelsea. It had nothing to do with her.
Just my opinion.

Posted by: Butler Student | March 26, 2008 2:24 PM

I am a senior at Butler and I was sitting in the front row when the question was asked.
I am not voting for Hilary, but I do not think that question was appropriate for Chelsea. It had nothing to do with her.
Just my opinion.

Posted by: Butler Student | March 26, 2008 2:24 PM

I can't wait until someone asks Chelsea a question about that question.

Posted by: jack | March 26, 2008 2:25 PM

At least with Lewinsky - the contact was consensual.

Of far greater relevant interest would be the question: "Given that Hillary touts her "feminist" credentials, how does this square with her continued affiliation with a serial abuser of women - who were NOT willing recipients of his advances - ie. Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Wlley, etc."

Posted by: Starboard | March 26, 2008 2:25 PM

Remember the saying - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of kithchen." It would not be fair to ask Chelsea the question, if she was a private citizen. But, in this case, she is actively campaigning for Hillary. So, fairness of the question does not arise in this case. Regardless, she could have answered in a non-arrogant way by simply saying - This is a personal issue and hence no comments. But, it is the "Clinton-arrogance" and double standard at display, once again.

Posted by: Raj | March 26, 2008 2:26 PM

Pete wrote:

The question was not about the Lewinski scandal. The question was about her mother's credibility.

This is a truth.

Can person, which publicly, so brutal underestimate her husband, be President of USA and all rest of the works?

Posted by: gandra | March 26, 2008 2:26 PM

It was an unnecessary question, but Chelsea answered it perfectly, tone of voice and all.

Posted by: Michele | March 26, 2008 2:26 PM

She was at a FUND RAISER for her mother. Of course it is a fair question. Want my donations? Better be ready to answer questions, even hard ones, no, especially the hard ones.

Posted by: Ankharan | March 26, 2008 2:26 PM

I wish the opportunity had been put to better use, asking why Hillary lied about her support of NAFTA, lied about her Apocalypse Now story about Bosnia, lied about bringing peace to Northern Ireland, lied about how she "won't hold hands with the Saudis" when there are already millions and millions of dollars of Saudi money tied to the Clintons and their pet projects, why she's shamelessly pushing the Wright distraction weeks after it ceased being 'news' to distract from her own exposed lies about her 'experience', or to ask if Hillary's pushing the Wright distraction is an open invitation for closer inspection of Hillary's ties to the creepy, secretive religious organization "The Family".

But, since she's a grown, 27 year old, college educated woman, and is on tour as a surrogate campaigning for a Presidential candidate, any question that is fair for any reporter, or anyone in the general public, to ask, is fair to ask of any surrogate speaking for the campaign - including Chelsea.

If she doesn't want to answer questions,, she shouldn't take questions. And the way people who ask questions the Clintons don't like get "shouted down"by Clinton supporters is eerily reminiscent of the way people got shouted down with "Four more years!" when somebody asked a question Bush supporters didn't want to hear four years ago.

Posted by: ChrisR | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM

Reluctant to use an old worn out cliche,
but the "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", may apply here. Chelsea is obviously delegated to an official capacity in the Clinton campaign,
in part, to answer sincere questions on voter's minds. This would seem to qualify as one of those questions. The "questioner", didn't appear to be some ravenous reporter wanting to know specifics as to the "affair", or how Hillary responded to it in particular, but was, rather a very general question as to how it might have affected her mother's credibility. Chelsea's answer could be termed as perhaps: unstatesman like, undiplomatic, unprofessional, or even rude.
The Clinton campaign can't afford to alienate voters, with rash answers from an unseasoned representative, such as Chelsea appears to come across presently.

Posted by: teddyb | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM

The question was in extremely poor taste, and probably irrelevant as well. But Chelsey Clinton's reply shows that she has inherited her parents' intelligence and can field virtually anything. Good for her! (But I'm still voting for Obama.)

Posted by: Jojo Jones | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM

The question was in extremely poor taste, and probably irrelevant as well. But Chelsey Clinton's reply shows that she has inherited her parents' intelligence and can field virtually anything. Good for her! (But I'm still voting for Obama.)

Posted by: Jojo Jones | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM

Typical Clinton response... don't asnwer any legitamate questions. The question wasn't asking for personnal info on the issue, but spoke to Hillary's credibilty and is totally a lget question that deserved a legit answer. The girl has opened herself up to the scrutiny of the entire USA since she's pimpin for her mother.

Posted by: Aubrey | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM

The question was badly worded, but there is some validity to it. "How did Hillary handle the shock, the pressure, and the press scrutiny?" would have been better. And I would expect Chelsea to come up with a worthwhile answer if she is representing the Clinton campaign. The answer she gave made her sound like an immature 16 year old, not a 20-something year old professional.

Posted by: Andrew | March 26, 2008 2:28 PM

yes sure! As long as rapist(Bill Clinton) rape Monica it will be good to ask chusoli
about her father

Posted by: robin from ny | March 26, 2008 2:28 PM

Chelsea is her mother's daughter, she will do/say anything to get her mother/father elected. If elected her father will be free to roam the White House in a trench coat, short leggings tied off just below the knees, sing " Ho, Ho the parakeet is next....."

Posted by: argo | March 26, 2008 2:28 PM

Are you kidding - if she is going to campaign for her monther to be president than she has to take the heat of the kitchen.

There are so many issues around the Clinton dyansty attempt at 12-16 year sin the white house Americans should be very concerned. Chelsea may be the only clean Clinton and perhaps she and not her Mother should be running for office.

The dirty politics against Obama, love him or hate him, is outrageous and not forgivable. Her parents are political slime in my eyes lowering the prestige of America.

Posted by: halb | March 26, 2008 2:28 PM

it is relevant to the elections because if they cant be faithful to their own spouse and have a successful marriage, how are they suposed to faithfully run a country?

Posted by: 6r | March 26, 2008 2:29 PM

It's a cheap shot; but yes, it's fair. This is a woman who has, repeatedly, enabled her husband's bad behavior. Her credibility should definitely be questioned at every opportunity.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:29 PM

I am a little disappointed--but not surprised--that when the commentator quoted Chelsey as saying, "Even though I think you're cute," the title on the screen read, "Even though I think your cute." I realize that many people (including some posters here) don't understand the difference, but journalists should, even though it's only television.

Posted by: Ralph124C41 | March 26, 2008 2:29 PM

rose wrote

"Tell me, would we think a male candidate appear weak if his wife committed adultery and he stood by? Doubtful. He would be viewed as such a great guy, understanding, blah, blah.
This has nothing to do with the campaign. Standing by your man is not up for vote. It's a personal choice."

What a fool you are rose. If some guy stayed married to his president wife while she humiliated him, his child, the Democratic party and the nation, we would laugh him out of any attempt to parlay that "personal decision" into elected office, let alone the presidency.

It was a political decision, everyone in the country, including Hillary and Chelsea knows that...except you.

Turning reality on its ear and calling Hillary strong for degrading herself and her daughter just to remain part of a political machine is ridiculous.

The Clintons are openly running as a couple, they deserve contempt, not votes.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 26, 2008 2:30 PM

Chelsea should have answered the question because it is a legitimate issue concerning the background of Mrs Clinton.

Chelsea also lied to the American by saying she stands by her mother's comments concerning Bosnia. Chelsea was also in Bosnia and by agreeing with her mother, she has also insulted the intelligence of the United Staes Armed Forces.

Chelsea get out know while your reputation is still somewhat in tact. Your latest appearance on TV made you look as nasty as your Mom and Dad!

Posted by: Kevin V. | March 26, 2008 2:30 PM

Of course it's fair? Chelsea can only have it both ways so long. In fact, how much longer can Barak take Hillary's attacks against his integrity over his pastor without finally questioning Hillary's judgement to stay married to a man who by overwhelming evidence should be characterized as a serial sexual aggressor against women. Talk about judgement. Unfortunately, if Chelsea's going to play politics, then she's going to have to answer some very real questions. It was only a matter of time till it happened.

Posted by: Matt S- | March 26, 2008 2:30 PM

Credibility is very important. I think we need to first ask, why is it necessary to ask Chelsea this question. Is it more of wanting embarrass Chelsea or just curiosity then of any meaningful insight? Also I think one has to be really think whats the expectation out of this question.

For people who believe its a fair game, I am sorry to say this, will they ask Obama's children about the pastor? Where will this stop?

Posted by: DrDrew | March 26, 2008 2:31 PM

What woman doesn't believe that she wouldn't be affected by that scandal. This is the person who wants to run our country, but doesn't even know what her husband is up to in the oval office. PLEASE!!!! I thought it was a great question. These canidates are judged by everything else, but why is their personal life off limits.

If we decide as a country to elect a woman, I would hope that it would be someone that has enough respect for herself to cut her loses and make her own way in this life. Isn't that what independence is all about? Come now Chelsea, you know your Mom was a total smuck to put up with your Dad's meandering...

Posted by: jrh | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM

Being a country with freedom of speach and other free licenses, any question is fair.

And Chelsea's answer is even more fair.

Men and women all over the US stick with their marriages with an unfaithful spouse for various valid reasons. I fails to see where the "credibility" connection is. If divorcing an unfaithful spouse is a more "credible" decision, this country would have hardly any married couples left.

Posted by: Kishor Gala | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM

It's no one's business what happened between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton but Hillary's. The US was just doing so good back then that we had nothing BETTER to focus on than the infedelity of the President. (That right there should tell you that Clinton was a good President and Hillary probably learned a lot from him) Who the hell cares. It happens every day. It shouldn't determine if you will or wont vote for Hillary. I think that it is outright ridiculous to even bring it up.

Posted by: Stupid | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM


Some people are planted in audiences. For sure.

No - it isn't fair to ask Chelsea Clinton to answer that question.

The question proves Americans are sick with the need for entertainment.

No longer a country of communities where gossip can be small and corrode small individual souls - it's now become a mob event.

Really the lowest of American entitlement delusions.

This ridiculous Puritan society makes me long for a vacation in France - or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

American's at their very worst.

Obama's preacher is FAR more disturbing. God Damn America.

Mr. Obama sat, sang, swayed and clapped to that rabid racist - and now thinks he has a right to be President.

THAT'S AUDACITY.

Posted by: Thinks | March 26, 2008 2:33 PM

Is it fair game to ask Chelsea Clinton about the Lewinsky scandal?

Hell No! Three cheers for Chelsea giving the appropriate response. It has nothing to do with 2008 and there are certainly more important and vital issues to be discussed. Unfortunately, the national media is more interested in these trivial and irrelevant issues rather than discussing issues that really matter to Americans.

Posted by: John | March 26, 2008 2:33 PM

Since when does Bill Clinton's infidelity have ANYTHING to do with Hillary's ability to govern? The problem is that the American Media (and public at large) think that what happens in the bedroom of public people is public information! With the issues today with Iraq, the economy, climate, etc...who cares about Monica Lewinsky!!

Posted by: Richard | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM

Of course it is fair. Chelsea is a big girl now and has injected herself into the campaign. It was disingenuous of her to answer that it was none of the interviewer's business. She was asked about the mother's credibility, which is a legitimate question.

And frankly, Hillary Clinton is not strong enough to leave a serial cheater, she is hardly strong enough to lead a nation. She can't even keep her husband happy, no way can she keep a nation happy.

Posted by: Isaac Martin | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM

People ask about Barack's relationship with a person who caused him embarrassment pastor) and question his relationship with that person.

People ask about Hillary's relationship with a person who caused her embarrassment (Bill) and question her relationship with that person.

Same thing.

Posted by: Newt | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM

my instincts tell me Hillary is not the right person for President at this point in time (no, not because she's a woman). that said, any questions regarding that particular episode should never have been directed to Chelsea as she was not involved. also, if memory serves, the scandal was with the husband, not the wife; how his indiscretions would harm her credibility seems a mystery. Chelsea was right in responding that it was none of that person's business, as it is no one's business outside the family unless it directly impacts one's ability to perform their duties or national security.

Posted by: jm | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM

To ggranny21--What does this question have to do with Barack Obama...his drug use?? Bill and Hillary experimented with drugs, as did Bush.

Obama's pastor is not racist, he was speaking about the racism that has gone on in America since Blacks were brought here as slaves. Blacks are treated the worse of any minority in the U.S. He did not make the rules, the pastor was just commenting on them. I don't know why Whites are so upset about the truth.

As far as Chelsea is concerned, if you can't stand the heat--get out of the kitchen.

The arrogance of the Clintons is just amazing!!!!!

Posted by: UWorlds1 | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM

I was impressed with the way Chelsea handled the situation, she appears to be smarter than both of her parents. I don't think it is fair to question her on such a thing. Ask the question of Bill, he's the pig that disgraced the White House & the Office of the President. It's not Chelsea's baggage.....

Posted by: Elvis | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM

Chelsea Clinton should have answered the question. If they can parade Obama and question him on his preacher's statements/faith/beliefs, then they can push the line with Hillary's daughter as well. A relationship with a man of God and a PUBLIC affair don't seem too different in terms of "personal questions"(and after all the Clinton campaign has whined that they want the questions to be more equal between the two candidates).

I mean honestly, all he wanted to know was if she thought her mother's decisions during the scandal make her a stronger or weaker candidate? Chelsea could have simply said her mother is strong etc etc. Maybe there's some unresolved childhood issues going on there.

Posted by: MD | March 26, 2008 2:35 PM

I'd rather ask Hillary if she'll do for me what Monica did for Bill! That might let us judge her "experience"(expertise).
As to asking such; no different than telling about dodging gunfire in Iraq......all free speech, some just posed as questions instead of statements.
Politics ranks as the world's second-oldest profession, learned from those praticing the oldest.

Posted by: Pookie | March 26, 2008 2:35 PM

Of course it is fair. Chelsea is a big girl now and has injected herself into the campaign. It was disingenuous of her to answer that it was none of the interviewer's business. She was asked about the mother's credibility, which is a legitimate question.

And frankly, Hillary Clinton is not strong enough to leave a serial cheater, she is hardly strong enough to lead a nation. She can't even keep her husband happy, no way can she keep a nation happy.

Posted by: Isaac Martin | March 26, 2008 2:35 PM

Butler Student
Just curious. Did you know the student who asked the question? What was the general reaction? I'm an Obama supporter. But, I think Chelsea has suffered enough due to her dad's philandering.

Posted by: Jack | March 26, 2008 2:35 PM

Asking if Hillary's credibility suffers because of what Bill did is like asking the catholic church if their credibility suffered because some of their priest's were child molesters. At least the church quit pretending it didn't happen.

Posted by: Mark | March 26, 2008 2:36 PM

This reminds me of when George W. Bush was running for president in 2000 and said he wasn't going to talk about his alcoholism, drug addiction, nude table top dancing etc and the press said " OH, O.K. whatever you say. " Chelsea has made grandiose statements like " My parents are role models " but won't take questions. I'd like her to explain why if her father is such a role model he's no longer allowed to practice law in this country. Let's not forget Hillary knew of Bill's true character long before she endorsed him to the American people. It amazes me when women cite the Lewinsky mess as a tribute to Hillary's strength to cope with the duties of being president- but don't want to discuss Hillary's role in disgracing the Nation. I voted for Clinton twice but I feel that America has been as embarassed by the Clintons as we have been by Cheney/Bush. What has all this taught me ? NEVER to trust a Clinton .

Posted by: Erik Voks | March 26, 2008 2:36 PM

It's all moot anyhow. After the Clinton fraud trial is over in California and the democratic party forces Hillary to resign, it will all be old news.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 2:37 PM

Someone should ask her about perjury and whether a President is above the law.

Posted by: MIdge | March 26, 2008 2:38 PM

Folks, the question was about credibiltiy.
After all, how much have you heard about the "...vast right-wing conspiracy..." that Hillary concocted lately?
The question goes directly to the judgement and credibility of the candidate.
If Ms. Clinton is unable/unwilling to answer a meaningful question, she's no better than her parents, and should get off the campaign trail.

Posted by: Barcroft | March 26, 2008 2:38 PM


Some people are planted in audiences. For sure.

No - it isn't fair to ask Chelsea Clinton to answer that question.

The question proves Americans are sick with the need for entertainment.

No longer a country of communities where gossip can be small and corrode small individual souls - it's now become a mob event.

Really the lowest of American entitlement delusions.

This ridiculous Puritan society makes me long for a vacation in France - or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

American's at their very worst.

Obama's preacher is FAR more disturbing. God Damn America. In a church !

God Damn America while 3000 innocent victims were still being searched for in the rubble at Ground Zero.

Mr. Obama sat, sang, swayed and clapped to that rabid racist - and now thinks he has a right to be President.

THAT'S AUDACITY.

No one planted him in that audience. He came in, sat down and stayed for Twenty Years. Still sitting there. The rabid racist is still "family". Oh yeah. That's Audacity alright. That's unAmerican.


Posted by: Thinker | March 26, 2008 2:38 PM

That's my daughter and I think that was totally inappropriate for....whoa!..there sure are some purty girls there.

Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 2:38 PM

Well that is very well shocking. I would never ask a candidate something like that. That is very personal. I could understand the gentleman's point of view for asking that, to make a point of credibility for his fellow doubters. However, for the doubters, what I don't understand is why "the mishap" has anything to do with Hillary's credibility?

These stories serve as distractions. People we must stick with THE ISSUES and support their stances on those. All of this nonsense holds no weight compared to THE ISSUES this entire country faces. Generally speaking, we need A Democrat in office these next 4 years to overturn the nonsense of the past consecutive terms.

Chelsea is an adult, but I do wish she wasn't asked that question.

I agree with the fact that personal choices should remain personal choices as long as harm isn't being done by the candidates or rights being infringed. We're all human, and these candidates are no different. It is in my personal opinion that Hillary has demonstrated her strength to remain where she is with her husband. I think it depends on how people look at the matter. Half of marriages have been ending in divorce lately. That is a sign of strength. That is testimony to a serious trial.

Without bias on the matters, and with the ability to attempt fair judgment and not allow ill distractions: Obama or Hillary '08.

Posted by: Obama2008 | March 26, 2008 2:39 PM

It was a crass comment asked by a college student trying to make a mark. Fair? I dunno, probably, but tasteless? Yes! And really pretty dumbass. It was meant to embarrass her, and that's a fool's errand, frankly, for it goes nowhere worthwhile. Her answer was the right one.

On the other hand, I think it's out-of-bounds for Chelsea to be stumping around the nation as a surrogate for her mother while refusing to take questions from the press. So, I think the press ought to get together with some (smarter than Evan) students and feed them some relevant questions to ask on their behalf. Like, "Chelsea, your mother said there was sniper fire at the airport in Bosnia? Did she tell the truth? Was there sniper fire?" If Chelsea gets embarrassed, then that's the way it goes when you're in the crossfire (so to speak).

Posted by: Rev. DoLittle | March 26, 2008 2:40 PM

I think more poignant, would have been to ask her to recount the Bosnian trip with her mother. How hard it must be to campaign for her mother knowing that she lied? Oh, I'm sorry, "misspoke"!

Posted by: Nancy L | March 26, 2008 2:41 PM

YES! If she intends to rally the crowd in support of a candidate, then not only does she deserve to receive questions of that nature pertaining to that candidate, but she also has an obligation to respond to it in a coherent, reflective manner. She cannot pick and choose questions that suit her taste. She cannot all of the sudden choose to be the slighted daughter when because the question displeased her. GROW UP!!!

Posted by: Ric | March 26, 2008 2:41 PM

I had to tell my daughter what phone sex was after she came home from school. For the record, I told her a red phone was a female and black phone was a male. (Thanks Bill if your reading this)

The press has made what I think the correct call is, Chelsea is a 30 year old Rhode Scholar who doesn't answer questions because she doesn't have too, so why bother.

It takes a village of reporters.

Posted by: Patrick Lanning | March 26, 2008 2:42 PM

Two of my good friends, both female, who were dyed in the wool Hillary supporters, now say they will not vote for her if by miracle she is the nominee. The "dodging sniper fire" episode was the final straw.

There are two that finally saw the light.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 26, 2008 2:43 PM

No it isn't, and any journalist who does ask a question on this should be ashamed. It's not a political question, it has no relevance to Hillary's candidacy at all. It's a ridiculous statement to say that Chelsea has opened herself up to this because she is doing fundraising events.

Posted by: Mike L | March 26, 2008 2:45 PM

Is it fair, as in is it legitimate? Yes.
Is it necessary? No. Especially not when there are others to ask, who could respond using wide ranging data from polls and from their fields of study on an issue like this.
Is it a decent or appropriate question to ask Chelsea? No.
Have we really become a society so lacking in appropriate empathy and insight that we don't see that asking their daughter this question will likely only illuminate how painful that incident was/is for her, and shed little light on the actual intended information the questioner was seeking?

Posted by: JD | March 26, 2008 2:45 PM

The good thing about people who use a public forum to try to humiliate a rival in this electronic age is that their actions are there for all posterity and should certainly give pause to any potential employer that this person is not capable of demonstrating good judgment.

This is much like the people who have found themselves unemployable by by their desired firms based on Facebook and other public venues.

Life, as they say, is a graded event.

Posted by: Kevin | March 26, 2008 2:45 PM

For those sitting in the glass house throwing rocks at others....

How credible are you for selecting Cheney/Bush, twice?

Have you slept with someone and not married that person?

Posted by: Kishor Gala | March 26, 2008 2:45 PM

hI raise my hand for Chelsea. It is high time we citizens of USA look at the mirrow and stop casing rats while our houses are burning. The question asked about Monica as far as I am concerned is irrelevant and can only come from shallow minds. Americans please stop the gossipsand aspersions and face the real issues. Chelsea is blessed for having her parents go through such adversities in life that is not just peculiar to the Clintons,They are blessed because the family came out of still a family unlike many American homes/families. it seems like we are addicted to separation and divorce and any ugly aspect of life. No more room forgood things in the media, no more endureance , understanding or forgiveness and yet we are not stoping to see what this is doing to our generation and those yet to mature.In Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austin's Novel)there is this quote "Follies and nonsence, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own and I laugh at them whenever I can" He who is not without flaws let him cast the first stone.

Posted by: APPAULLED | March 26, 2008 2:45 PM

Obama's preacher is FAR more disturbing to me than ANYTHING Bill did.

God Damn America. In a church ! Ranting, raving and asking people to chant it with him?

God Damn America while 3,000 innocent victims were still being searched for in the rubble at Ground Zero.?

And Obama still associates with him and calls him FAMILY. Still went to that church for TWENTY YEARS?

Mr. Obama sat, sang, swayed and clapped to that rabid racist - and now thinks he has a right to be President.

THAT'S AUDACITY.

No one planted Obama in that audience. He came in, sat down and stayed for Twenty Years. Still sitting there. The rabid racist is still "family". Oh yeah. That's Audacity.


Chelsea should do what Obama does constatly - REFUSE to answer, turn your back on reporters - and get away with it.

God Bless America.

Just say no to Obama's Audacity.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:45 PM

Fair? Why should anyone in the campaign expect questions to be fair? Both democratic candidates are unfair to each other in their respective spins on what each other have done or are doing.

As for the insinuation that someone who wants to be president of our country has a private life? Only an idiot would run for an office like this and have the audacity to expect their "private life" to be respected in the same manner as someone out of the public eye. I though that Chelsea's answer was disrespectful given the gravity of the character that's at hand. Poor girl. I can't imagine what it must have been like behind closed doors in her household. It's actually no surprise that she responded the way she did.

Posted by: Mark | March 26, 2008 2:46 PM

The questions showed a great deal of ignorance. Hillary has published all the details of that time in her book. If One is interested in the details, but it is obvious there is a motive to somehow hurt another person. Of course it does not change the admiration we all have for Chelsea's Mother. Hillary brings excitement and creativity to the office. We can hardly wait.
To imply one should get a divorce is ludicrous. Some of us take our marriage vows very seriously. For better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health till death do us part.
Hillary has forgiven Bill, everybody should butt out, we should forgive him too.
Funny how pettiness comes out in a battle for the nomination. So superficial compared to the deep water problems that are the most important. Journalism is
staying in shallow water.
Hillary is, by a country mile, a better representative of ALL people, yes including the Republicans.
How about the economy package she worked on over the week-end while lazy obama was lolly-gagging on the beach. Was he meditating all the 20 years of sermons or was he replaying them to keep his hate
programming up to date.
As always he is a day late and allows his cohorts to prepare his speeches and copy Hillary again. In the debates, he lets her answer and then jumps into a stump speech. He is boring. She is always first with policy. all )??his ideas are absent in his speeches.(
His backers will have a prepackaged response to the economy, ready for him this week. He is a poor excuse for the Democrats.
Yes, we should ask his daughters if they are planning on being stoned like their father was in High School. When the pastor in your church tells you to hate America and your school teacher tells you to love America, which one do you do?

Posted by: Roosevelt1 | March 26, 2008 2:46 PM

In America, we have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. So any questions are the welcome. I doubt Chelsea was not prepared to handle such topic or any other ones. Up to the young lady to prove how strong she can be in a debate.

Posted by: argeos | March 26, 2008 2:47 PM

A better question might have been this:

"Were you scared out there when you were dodging sniper fire with your mother in Tuzla?"

We want answers to the tough questions. If you are running for President, or speaking for your mother who is running for President, you are a public figure, and the public should be able to ask tough questions and get TRUTHFUL answers. Mrs. Clinton has a problem with answering tough questions and telling the truth. It's about time the public got straight answers from someone!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:47 PM

YES!
Chelsea is campaigning on behalf of her mother, her roll model, Hillary Clinton, so all questions should be open for her to answer. She should have no problem answering the question since her mom is her roll model. Most people have no problems talking about or answering any questions about their roll model. This goes for everyone who is out campaigning on behalf of any canidate. If you feel strong enough about the canidate to campaign for them, you should answer the same questions that the canidates would be asked. After all, you are representing that canidate.

Posted by: Greg Stocker | March 26, 2008 2:47 PM

What poor taste and judgment to ask. I guess it's not 'off limits', it's just terribly inappropriate, unproductive and a lame attempt at getting some fleeting attention. Uh, don't tell me 'all his friends ask me that question'. Sounds like he's looking to cover from this backfiring on him.

If this is considered OK, would it be alright to ask the "adult" Bush twins: "do you think it's fair that your Dad started a war under false pretenses, and now that 4000 soldiers are dead, you're still safe, healthy and not being sent to Iraq yourselves in sub standard body armor?"

Posted by: you gotta be kidding | March 26, 2008 2:47 PM

Why wouldn't it be fair? After all she has had to deal worth worse.... Sniper fire in Bosnia?

Posted by: John | March 26, 2008 2:48 PM

There is no need to resort to this type of behavior when there are so many substantive issues to nail her on. It's unnecessary and bad form.

Posted by: Joe Republican | March 26, 2008 2:48 PM

I'd ask everyone to please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

Posted by: Ken | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Bad taste ? Probably.
OK to ask ? Hell yes !!

Posted by: gkel | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Yes - Fair Game. Politics is a dirty game. You can not expect to play in the mud wearing a white dress and not get dirty! She is a GROWN woman and made a CHOICE to campaign for Hillary. She must accept that this is a two way street. You have to DEFEND your candidate as well as support her. This glass-house approch is not going to cut it. It doesn't matter what party she belongs to, it matters that she is a public figure. Cut and dry.

Posted by: Pour1 | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA, lied about her role in brokering peace in Ireland, and of late, lied about her trip to Bosnia as first lady where she claimed to be under fire upon arrival at the airport there.
The question about Hillary's credibility in relation to the Lewinsky affair is small potatoes. But Chelsea is fair game because she's being political on her mother, the Monster's, behalf.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Why isn't it fair? campaining comes with responsibility to field any questions

Posted by: Deb | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

It's took bad Chelsea didn't take the time to find out who was asking her the question. The student was a Clinton supporter and Chelsea missed a great opportunity.

Why didn't she question her mother's lying about the Bosnia trip.

Why didn't she question her father about lying about the Monica incident.

The Clinton's will lie to get whatever they want. Their priorities are Clinton's first and America next.

Posted by: tella | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Of course it's fair. Hillary Clinton's credibility was damaged. Remember, she accused the "vast right wing conspiracy" of attempting to smear her husband. She swore that she knew nothing about his affair, even though she had every reason to believe it given his past.

If Chelsea doesn't want to answer, that is her right, but the question isn't out of bounds. If she wants to avoid these types of questions, she can stay home. The reality of being a political surrogate is answering unpleasant questions. I'm sure none of Clinton's surrogates want to answer questions about Lewinsky. Such is life.

Posted by: Laura | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

The internet provides one valuable resource in that an analysis of what the average American's logical thinking capacilities are readily measurable.

The further this election goes, the more Americans should be praying for a return to a monarchy. Most registered voters shouldn't be allowed to drive a vehicle never mind cast a vote for the head of state.

Posted by: dumbingdown | March 26, 2008 2:50 PM

I usually don't get interested in politicians personal affairs, but since this was an impeachable offense, I think it warrants further investigation.
In regards to Chelsea, I think its totally fair. It is quite apparent that we aren't just electing Hillary to the presidency, but we are electing the entire Clinton family to become the presidential family.
Ask away.

Posted by: Brock | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM

Yes it's fair. Bill brought this on himself, his family and all of us in America by not keeping it in his pants. Totally fair game. It's about time someone reminded us that a vote for Clinton is a vote for more of the same.

Posted by: sherms | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM

This is coming from a woman - I just don't see how sexual indiscretions and politics make the headlines. Like professional sports and anyone's lives, it goes on, it's dealt with and the public has no right to know about it.

I do not see how decisions that affect the physical desires have an influence on the rational/logical decisions of every day life.

Spitzer, Clinton, Kobe Bryant, it's all the same. How does Kobe's indiscretion affect his basketball skills? Same question to politicians. Does it matter?
Who cares!

Just make the right decision for most of the public's benefit and I'm fine!

Let's move on to the issues!

Posted by: dragonlady | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM

All questions are not created equal. This is not as much a question as a comment to Chelsea "your mother is a liar." How can an answer from her respond to a statement like that? It is tricky political speech disguised as legitimate journalism. Not only should she not answer it but she should ignore the question altogether. When they ask her "why did you ignore the quesion?" she can respond in a professional way---that is a legitimate question.

Posted by: Charlie French | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM

It may be debatable whether a certain question is a good one or not--whether it's really worth asking. But yes, it's certainly "fair." If Chelsea is going out campaigning for Hillary, she is in effect volunteering to field questions on Hillary's behalf.

Posted by: ECQ | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

Yes. It is fair.
This is Chelsea's opportunity to leave the Clinton legacy of being unresponsive except to their biggest lobby supporters. We know that they refuse to answer Obama's request for more transparent finances. It's too bad that the Butler University experience leaves Chelsea with at best a 0-1 record. She's Clintonian politics as usual unless she stops a number of things like lying continually. She'll be in the White House again soon enough after Hillary becomes Obama's VP, and after Obama joins the list of those who die mysteriously when they get in the Clintons' ways.

Posted by: Deborah Charles | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

If HRC is going to be nominated and if she is sending her adult daughter out to campaing FOR her, than every question must get a decent answer. Even though she might respond: I don't talk about that story anymore.
But the fact, that Billys Monica Engagement found worldwide attention and belongs to the Amnerican politics makes it a matter as long as somebody of the Hillybilly family is in pole position.

Posted by: sieweke | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

It might not be a nice question but when you are in front of the mike you are fair game. If she does not want to be embarrassed don't get on the mike. I think Chelsea has not been bothered by the press. I beleive they have treated her with respect. But when you get in the public eye things are different.

Posted by: Jerry | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

Rave on about Rev. Wright. Apparently you do not know that he was invited to the White House and that Hillary was present. There is a picture of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright on the internet. Google and read. When he was helpful to Bill, he was used.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

Bad taste ? Probably.
OK to ask ? Hell yes !!

Posted by: gkel | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

It might not be a nice question but when you are in front of the mike you are fair game. If she does not want to be embarrassed don't get on the mike. I think Chelsea has not been bothered by the press. I beleive they have treated her with respect. But when you get in the public eye things are different.

Posted by: Jerry | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

Thanks ichief and TJ Paulson. For a minute I thought I was the only one who thinks this episode tells us more about our press 'watchdogs' than it does about the Clintons. Harry Smith is actually worried about whether the press is laying down for Chelsea? Talk about laying down! Where have his tough, probing questions been for the last eight years?

Where were his tough, probing questions over the extent to which the Bush administration has circumvented and curtailed civil rights in our nation?

Where were his tough, probing questions over the 4000 Americans killed in Bush's war built on lies?

Where are his tough, probing questions as this administration presides over the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich in human history?

Unfortunately, the press' cowardliness is not limited to Harry Smith or CBS but I'll bet Edward R. Murrow is turning over in his grave.

gnass03

Posted by: gnass03 | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM

That is so bad!

Posted by: Eugene | March 26, 2008 2:53 PM

You may ask any question you wish, and the person answering can answer "none of your business" It's like asking the question (WHEN DID YOU STOP BEATING YOUR WIFE?)

Posted by: Jim, Texax | March 26, 2008 2:53 PM

Okay, so Hillary would have left the church, but she didn't leave that marriage? Why? the only reason to stay married to a philanderer like Bill was to ride his coat tails to the power she so craves.

I think it's a fair question to ask - espcially when Hillary is offering what "she would do" regards rev. wright.

I think saying, "It's non of your business" was rude. Was it really no bodies business that Bill Clinton lost the white house over his own sex addiction? I don't think so.

Of course Hillarys' crediblity was damaged. she was cuckolded, and she knew it.

Who needs another 8 years of Clinton Drama. Not me.


Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:54 PM

Yes, it is fair if she is actively campaigning as her mother's surrogate. It was a question about her mother's credibility, which is an important question about anyone seeking the presidency. As a surrogate, she is open to questions about her candidate's credibilty. Her reaction was not at all graceful or gracious. She should have shown some control and sloughed off the question more artfully. Her reaction only made her look petulant and her family "entitled," rather than responsible to its electorate. If she does not like such questions, then she should remove herself from her role as election surrogate.

Posted by: Wizened, Feminist, Liberal Grandmother | March 26, 2008 2:54 PM

Okay, so Hillary would have left the church, but she didn't leave that marriage? Why? the only reason to stay married to a philanderer like Bill was to ride his coat tails to the power she so craves.

I think it's a fair question to ask - espcially when Hillary is offering what "she would do" regards rev. wright.

I think saying, "It's non of your business" was rude. Was it really no bodies business that Bill Clinton lost the white house over his own sex addiction? I don't think so.

Of course Hillarys' crediblity was damaged. she was cuckolded, and she knew it.

Who needs another 8 years of Clinton Drama. Not me.


Posted by: huranghu | March 26, 2008 2:54 PM

Yes, it is fair if she is actively campaigning as her mother's surrogate. It was a question about her mother's credibility, which is an important question about anyone seeking the presidency. As a surrogate, she is open to questions about her candidate's credibilty. Her reaction was not at all graceful or gracious. She should have shown some control and sloughed off the question more artfully. Her reaction only made her look petulant and her family "entitled," rather than responsible to its electorate. If she does not like such questions, then she should remove herself from her role as election surrogate.

Posted by: Wizened, Feminist, Liberal Grandmother | March 26, 2008 2:54 PM

Yes, it is fair if she is actively campaigning as her mother's surrogate. It was a question about her mother's credibility, which is an important question about anyone seeking the presidency. As a surrogate, she is open to questions about her candidate's credibilty. Her reaction was not at all graceful or gracious. She should have shown some control and sloughed off the question more artfully. Her reaction only made her look petulant and her family "entitled," rather than responsible to its electorate. If she does not like such questions, then she should remove herself from her role as election surrogate.

Posted by: Wizened, Feminist, Liberal Grandmother | March 26, 2008 2:54 PM

I think the answer is obviously yes, but she could have given a much more intelligent, and diplomatic answer like: "no, not at all". After all, is this what they teach at her univerity, or is she just her mothers daughter?

Posted by: Ron Romero | March 26, 2008 2:55 PM

Quote: "The further this election goes, the more Americans should be praying for a return to a monarchy.


LOL. If Hillary gets in, you will have one.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:55 PM

You could make the argument that no one has done more damage to more people by cheating on his wife and lying about it in history. Bush needed the Supreme Court to beat Gore.

If Bill had not been impeached (to say little about firing missiles all over the world to distract attention from his guilt)
Gore would have won easily. It is obvious.

Republicans like Thinker need to keep talking about Obama's crazy pastor because they are terrified of running against Barak. The Clintons? Do you think the Republicans will treat Bill's years as President as irrelevant? All three of the Clintons need to go away now. Lives are at stake. Most of us consider the Clintons culpable for the oil war and not just because she voted for it.

Bill's lies defeated Gore and a lot of other Democrats who would have worked
to prevent the peak oil problem by creating alternatives to oil, instead of trying to steal it.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 2:55 PM

You can look at this from two different angles:

First,

Should she take credit for 'great' things her parents have done? May be -- or at least she can say that she feels proud of her parents achievements. Same way, she should be able to say that she feels ashamed for her parents actions during the scandal (when there is clear proof about the happening of disgraceful issue)

Second point is about campaigning for parents. I think if she can speak for her mother, she should be able to take questions that discredit her credibility among Americans.

While the question was not asked in good taste, but it is fair question to ask given that she is not idling -- she is campaigning for her mother.

Posted by: Ron | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

He's got the right to ask the question and she's got the right to not answer, which appears to be what happened. On the other hand, only a low-life, scumbag would attempt to embarass her with a question such as this. Shame on the hetworks for giving him credibility.

Posted by: vade D | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

Sure it's fair to ask her, even if in poor taste! It's also fair that her answer was "None of your business"! - Love it!

Posted by: August Trometer | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

all is fair in love, war and politics....it is the answer that provides the insight

Posted by: tim | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

if you cant swim, stay out of the water!

Posted by: bluezzy | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

I think the question was irrelevant. Her answer even more irrelevant. The Clinton's have a deserved reputation for being dishonest. I used to think Bill would be judged appropriately by the voters on round 2 reelection. His winning speaks volumes about the American publics attitude towards moral character.

Now Hillary is running? I would hope Whitewater etc and ad nauseum would turn a public off that is tired of dishonest politics. Let's say no to the Clinton's leaching off the public when they only represent their own brand of BS.

Posted by: Dr. S | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

Of course it is fair. This is politics, and whether you like it or not you're going to get questions that are difficult to answer. How she chooses to respond is more the point of the question than the actual question itself. "That's none of your business" is not the kind of answer we should expect from a democrat. More likely Bush.

Posted by: Duh | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

One would hope Obama is not supported by the college students of the type depicted here. That would create a huge "credibility" question. For the future of the nation.

Posted by: Kishor Gala | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

Absolutely fair! Chelsea wasn't just minding her own business on the street, she is out there selling her mother's capabilities as a leader. What better situation is there than a situation involving your personal life to demonstrate what kind of a person you are.

Posted by: pmacdee | March 26, 2008 2:56 PM

When she was younger both parents made her untouchable to the press and to a large part, media scrutiny. If she's going to be a part of her mother's campaign and be a public figure with a large degree of access by the media, she's going to have to accept that the gloves are off.

At her age and with her decision to be a public figure she can't have it both ways.

Frankly, both she and her mother's campaign managers must've known that this would happen and shame on them if they didn't realize it.

Posted by: Kar | March 26, 2008 2:57 PM

Asking a question like that is certainly within bounds. But anyone who asks a sleazy question should expect to be treated like a sleazeball.

On a logical level, Hillary's credibility wasn't damaged by her husband's lying. She behaved as well as anyone can hope for in an impossible situation. So the question itself was a stretch.

But the question really wasn't about Hillary at all. It was an attempt to dredge up her father's infidelity. And asking a young woman about her father's infidelity is just plain tacky.

So good for Chelsea for calling someone for their sleaziness.

Posted by: TimT | March 26, 2008 2:58 PM

the Clinton's are teaching Chelsey the wrong moral value - you can not have it both ways

either you smoke, had sex, etc - but you can not say i did not inhale, i mis spoke, i did not have sex with that woman...

so yes - there is new information as a result of this question - Chelsey is been molded in the questionable character of her parents

please stop the entitlements

Posted by: j | March 26, 2008 2:58 PM

You know. I'm a republican, and even I don't understand the interest in the Clinton's sex life. Nor do I understand why this has anything to do with Chelsea, nor even Hillery's credibility. Its like I live in country full of repressed morons. C'mon people, evolve!!

Posted by: M. Class | March 26, 2008 2:58 PM

I doubt I would ask Chelsea the Monica Lewinsky question as the question I would want to ask her is, "Did you confirm your mother's account of being under sniper fire when in Bosnia because you too were 'sleep deprived?'"

Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 2:59 PM

I am not a registered Democrat and i will not vote Democrat, but asking questions like that, is gone too far. Outrageous to say the least. That student did not expect to get an answer or did she? All this has nothing to do with the real issues, this is Gossip.

Posted by: Ernie, NJ | March 26, 2008 2:59 PM

I am not a registered Democrat and i will not vote Democrat, but asking questions like that, is gone too far. Outrageous to say the least. That student did not expect to get an answer or did she? All this has nothing to do with the real issues, this is Gossip.

Posted by: Ernie, NJ | March 26, 2008 2:59 PM

HRC = "Glass House" resident.

Posted by: Pour2 | March 26, 2008 2:59 PM

I think the question is very much ok and we as americans have the right to know--afterall if elected (which I hope she isn't) she will be running our country (that's scary) and we as the people have the right to know and for them to think that the press will not find out anything is absurd. Chelsea is a grown woman now and not a little girl that would need to be protected, I am sure this has come in conversation within the family and answers have been given. If she is not prepared to answer what "THE PEOPLE" want to know then maybe she needs to not be out there on the stage. Everyone should have known this quetion was going to come up sooner or later and KUDOS to Indiana for being the brave ones to ask!! She is a public figure along with her mother and father and even monica and it will never go away so why not take the bull by the horns and answer the question right off the bat. Monica--do you have anything to say? I bet Monica would love to get in on the conversation.

Posted by: just me | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM

Like any other hi profile political family, if she puts herself out to represent the family, then she should be prepared to answer any question about the family. Heck, her mother is saying that she is the best choice to be President of the greatest country on earth, then be prepared to address all of the questions, easy or hard and that goes for anyone who stands up as part and parcel of that family. If Chelsea does not want to answer questions, then Chelsea should not be representing her mother.

Posted by: Steve G | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM

Fair question is not THE question. Was it a relevant question is the better question.

It seemed like a stupid and illogical question, but it is a fair question. It's on the low end of the fairness scale, but it is fair.

But how logical was the question? How relevant? Why ask Hillary's daughter a question about Hillary's credibility by raising Bill's actions and statements regarding an affair he, naturally, took pains to hide from his wife and daughter? Don't you suppose the new governor of New York, Mr. Patterson, hid his multiple affairs from his wife? Don;t you think Kwame Kilpatrick take pains to hide his affair?

It was an attempt to continue the Republicant smear machine's, and now the Obama smear machine's, tactic of trying to define the Clinton administration by the Lewinsky affair.

Chelsea's answer was a good one, but she could have done better and should always remember every question involving Lewinsky is an opportunity to recall with pride and fond remembrance all the good things of the only twice elected Democratic president since FDR.

She should be able to tick off at least the top 10 of the hundreds of good things that the Clinton administration, by virtue of many difficult battles, was able to accomplish.

She should tick off the fact that the last three annual federal budgets were in surplus, not deficit; Bill's administration started to pay down the accumulated annual deficit which was put on a moon-shot trajectory by the preceding 12 years of Republicant administrations; the unemployment rate fell to a 30 year low of 3.9% even though throughout that 30 year period the Republicant's spouted as holy writ that 5 and 6% was, in fact, FULL EMPLOYMENT, that sytemically, it was not possible to get the unemployment rate any lower than 5 or 6%.

Chelsea, each and every time you hear a question that has as its intent a recasting of your father's administration as the Lewinsky affair reel off the these accomplishments , and people will stop asking questions about Lewinsky and stop trying to tear down the best record of accomplishments for the average American since FDR!

And, after listing 10 or more accomplishments of the Clinton administration, reference the howling and heated smears of the Right Wing attack machine and then tell the audience that, no matter how unfair or mean-spirited the attacks, at no time did she ever utter, or want to utter, the term "God Damn America."

No matter how unfair and unrelenting and low-handed the criticism got she never wavered in her love of her husband or her country.

Now let's contrast that with Barrack Obama, who sat for 20 years and listened to the heated, America-hating rhetoric of Rev. Wright and the Black Liberation Theology- a theology that harbors deep in its heart the sentiments that came spewing forth from the mouth of Rev. Wright when he screeched to a rapturously receptive audiences "GOD DAMN AMERICA."

Next time, and there will be many more next times, you tell them that, Chelsea.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM

Like any other hi profile political family, if she puts herself out to represent the family, then she should be prepared to answer any question about the family. Heck, her mother is saying that she is the best choice to be President of the greatest country on earth, then be prepared to address all of the questions, easy or hard and that goes for anyone who stands up as part and parcel of that family. If Chelsea does not want to answer questions, then Chelsea should not be representing her mother.

Posted by: Steve G | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM

How is it related to Hill's credibility? Bill cheated Hill, that was the bottom line

Posted by: Lin Huang | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM

Pathetic question from a pathetic person.
This type of mentality is an example of what brought Bush two terms.

The real question is how in a any type of critical analysis is this question relevant to anything other than an attempt to embarass or smear the Clintons.

Smearing the Clintons has become some sort of sport for the right-wing while ignoring the damage bestowed upon this nation by the right-wing.

Awesome.

Posted by: Jamie | March 26, 2008 3:01 PM

Chelsea is an adult pimping for Hillary on the campaign trail. She must be prepared for the rough and tumble of nasty politics. Otherwise, she should stay out of the fray.

If Chelsea remains out of the campaign, then she likely will not be asked questions about her parents or her candidate mother, and if she is she has every right to not answer. However, if she chooses to campaign for any candidate, then she will be asked questions about that candidate and anyone around them. That the candidate she chooses to campaign for is her mother does not give her any special consideration.

Posted by: JonSE | March 26, 2008 3:01 PM

WAKE UP!!! This has nothing to do with "standing by her man"
I'm starting to think that Hillary supporters are just as ignorant as she is

My previous post:

Her credibility was not damaged because of the scandal... rather by her rushing to blame the "vast right-wing conspiracy" - come on, Hillary, if you were still in denial about your your deviant husband at that time, how can think anything other than your brain is a black hole?????

Yes - your credibility has always been in question.

Posted by: SG | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

I feel asking Chelsea about Monica Lewinsky issue was really inappropriate to ask a daughter of the impeached president. However on the other hand, It seems that if they are going to use Chelsea to speak out in public they should be ready to handle any question that comes her way.

Posted by: Maryann | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

No No omg i wanted to cry when i saw chelseas face when asked that question,im sick and tired of the bashing of hillary going oN,Bill did a bad thing get over it its amazing how Hillary handeled it it goes to show you how amazing this woman is and how amazing a president she will be,and further more im tired of Obama people keep trying to compare him to J.F.K umm wasnt he the president that was eledgadly was having an affair with marilyn monroe?? yea nice comparison to Obama if J.F.K was the greatest president and it was ok for him to do what he did get over what Bill did he was a Great President!! VOTE HILLARY

Posted by: Vote Hillary | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

How is sexual harassment not an issue? Wasn't it a fair issue for Clarence Thomas?

Posted by: Big D | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

Of course it was a legitimate question. They asked if "She thought her Mother's credibility was damaged." So they were asking her opinion. Chelsea had every right to answer it the way she did just like the person had the right to ask.

Posted by: sum-rifle | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

Does anybody realize that Mr Strange, the Butler student is (was?) a Hillary supporter?
Call him ignorant or genius, and remember that he is a Hillary supporter.
Who is Monica endorsing anyway?

Posted by: Terence Hunt | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

For all who think this question is fair to ask a daughter[ or a son], then I say let us all start asking questions of every child of a politician, then we'll see how happy McCain, Obama, Peloisi, T. Kennedy,etc. will be. And you know once the flood gates are open for the MSM, there will be no holding them back.

Posted by: michele | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM

Someone asked me recently, "have you wondered why Hillary loses in caucuses so badly and Obama wins so easily.?"

His answer was, because in a caucus, people see who you are voting for and no one wants to be seen voting for Hillary.

Hmmm, sounds good to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

While I agree that Chelsea is stumping hard for her mother, questioning her about her father's infidelity and her mother's reaction to such are not only out of line, but also tacky and crude. Chelsea loves her mother (and her father, through it all) and her willingness to support Mrs. Clinton's campaign should be kept seperate from that dark smirch on Bill's record.

Posted by: patrick | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

huranghu

Your intelligence surprised me.
Have you just equaled Wright with Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton wasn't a good husband, but he was still a good president. I am glad Hillary didn't leave him and it shows she is a big person.
You on the other hand, citing a despicable person like Wright, suggesting Obama could have stayed just like Hillary did with Bill, is very despicable.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

Fair Game? Absolutely. She's campaining actively for Mom.

If you're grown up enough to stump for a candidate, take shots at the sitting president, and actively seek out the media - it's all fair game.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

If this is fair, give me an example of unfair. You want to ask a daughter if the credibility of her mother was damaged by the infidelity of her father? Well hell, why isn't Jenna Bush being hung out to dry for the dealings her great grandfather Prescott had with the Nazis? Why aren't you asking the Bush twins if the parents can be trusted after that kind of activity went on in their family?

Posted by: catalexis | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

It's fair (although stupid) to ask, it's also fair for Chelsea to refuse to answer. No big deal.

Posted by: Tom J | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

No, I don't think Chelsea should be the person to answer that question....I think Pres. Clinton should have to assure the public that we will not be bombarded with his personal habits ever again. I find it very hard to believe that the Republicans aren't sitting on a whole treasure trove of new revelations about what Bill Clinton has been up to since leaving office.

Posted by: NM | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

Hell YES it is fair! She is campaigning for her Mother. Her mother is the subject of public inspection.

Ok, so Chelsea does not want to answer questions she sees as off-limits. Like Mother like Daughter.

Her Mom won't answer tax return questions nor release her "Private" meeting notes.

Geezus, who do the members of this Family, think they are? I demand that I have the Right to be the next President. Anyone who interferes or bad mouths me does not have the right to do that.

Unfair? Its unfair that this little twerp was let loose on the American public. Another Miss Carville in the making. Her Godfather James must be proud of her.

Face it. We don't Like the Clintons. None of them. Go away!

Posted by: Decktete | March 26, 2008 3:04 PM

Hillary supports will say NO

Obama & McCain supporters will say YES

We are way past honest and objective consideration of anything to do with the Democratic Primary.

The last forum on Politics i visted, I remember have to run for the cover of my browser while evading enemy sniper fire...................LMAO

Can any one say BLATANT LIAR????

Posted by: unknown | March 26, 2008 3:05 PM

Why is Chelsea campaining if she doesn't want to answer the questions ask? Chelsea is not a child any more. I guess the Clinton's can have their cake and ice cream to.

Posted by: Ben | March 26, 2008 3:05 PM

In every other state of this world, including all african and latinamerica states, it would be impossible, that the betrayed lady of a PRESIDENT who was found having sexual intercourse within the office - at the same time his wife and his young daughter stayed in the same residence - and was tryed to be impeached and was lying deliberately in public - still by today, he did not confess completely - would think running for President.

This is so absurd, that it can only happen in the religous USA. What a shamble if high ranking people like Clinton, Spitzer, Liebermann etc etc having sexaffairs and running to the churches sitting in the front pew.
What a blasphemy, only possible in Americas bananarepublik. Dear me, what a record you got: Arkansas: Clinton!!, Texas: Bush, Bush, Bush, Wash DC: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush....and now again Clinton. DON'T DO IT, please.
Richardson was right: We need a new generation of leadership after Bush and Clinton, what is with the rest of us.....

Posted by: sieweke | March 26, 2008 3:05 PM

Yes, ask her what you will since her monther will not answer it for the Voters.

Posted by: Monica | March 26, 2008 3:06 PM

Yes, it is fair

Posted by: Leyla | March 26, 2008 3:07 PM

She is 28 years old and on the stump. Any question is fair game. I don't think she did very well at turning the answer into an asset...just sounds like more Clinton evasion. That said, even though the questioner says he is a Clinton supporter, it is not, a question that matters to me or other Americans who want to stay issue focused.

Posted by: Suzanne | March 26, 2008 3:07 PM

Really! I thought thr Clintons declared their daughter off-limits. Don't the Clintons set the terms for America?

It is a free country for all. That doesn't mean she needs to answer it.

Posted by: DenisR | March 26, 2008 3:07 PM

Yes Yes yes!! ask the questions ,if she can't take it she should shut up . The clintons were a disgrace in the whitehouse !

Posted by: Rick | March 26, 2008 3:07 PM

Of course it's fair.
http://blogs.bet.com/news/pamela/

Posted March 26, 2008 - Democrat Hillary Clinton decided Tuesday to deflect questions about her misleading recollection of her trip to Bosnia, by providing her rival with advice on how to deal with the fiery comments by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Clinton admitted she misled people about her humanitarian trip in 1996. "I made a mistake. That happens," she told reporters during a news conference in Pennsylvania. "It proves I'm human, which, for some people, is a revelation. "

Well, "being human" could be an excuse for most folks who make mistakes. But it isn't one she's been willing to allow Wright.

The media has shied away from publicly calling the New York senator a liar, but she didn't tell the truth about this trip, and it begs the question, "What else could she be misleading the American people about?"

What troubles me more is her comments regarding Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) decision not to leave his church.

"I think, given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor," the New York senator told a Pittsburgh newspaper this week. That's some tough talk from someone whose choices were questioned when she declined to renounce her husband's behavior involving Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton has never really explained why she decided not to leave her husband, if only for a short time, after she discovered his involvement with the White House intern. President Bill Clinton lied to his family and the American people about the extra-marital affair, and he was punished with impeachment. But why did she stay?

On Tuesday, Chelsea, on the campaign trail for the senator, was speaking to college students in Indiana. She was asked about the Lewinsky affair. She told the student that, in all of her 70 college visits, the question had never been asked. "And I do not think that is any of your business," she responded.

It's difficult to draw lines in the sand when you're running for public office, which requires public trust. The Clintons want all unpleasant and unpopular parts of their past off-limits.

"We don't have a choice when it comes to our relatives. We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the church we attend," Clinton told reporters.

Most folks would agree with the senator. But for the thousands of women who divorced their husbands for similar breaches of trust, they might ask her why she made a choice to stay. She made her choice, and no one questioned it.

Posted by: Pamela Gentry | March 26, 2008 3:07 PM

Im gonna say its bad form to ask the question in the first place, but what credibility does Hillary really have? All she's shown is that she can run a smear campaign against someone else and avoid important issues like the economy and foriegn policy issues. Thats not the kind of president I want.

Posted by: Tyler | March 26, 2008 3:08 PM

Yes. It's absolutely fair to ask. As others have noted, she's campaigning as a surrogate for her mother. She's a stand-in, a substitute. Use whatever words you like. And if she's talking about her mother's positions and views, you can't just cover the positive without exposing yourself to the negative.

And, while I don't mean to be mean spirited, questioners could ask Chelsea about other subjects, perhaps even more relevant to Hillary's campaign. How about how Hillary handled the health care issue when she was first lady? Or maybe a few of those pesky issues like Travelgate and the commodities trading? Has anyone asked Chelsea about her Bosnia trip, and whether she remembers those machine guns?

From everything I've seen, Chelsea is an intelligent, articulate, genuine person. But you really can't have it both ways. Either you're representing the candidate, or you're not.

Now, some might argue that even an intelligent, articulate 28 year old person is not qualified to speak for a presidential candidate. Others might argue that being married to the president for 8 years doesn't convey "over 30 years of experience" either. But somehow, we've bought into this notion that mere physical proximity imbues someone with the same experience and skills as the first person had. When Chelsea becomes old enough to run for president, are we again going to hear: "Over 30 years of experience?"

But I digress...kind of. The point is: If you claim to be representing someone, then you've got to represent them. And if you really don't have the experience and background to represent them, then assume another role.

Posted by: wordsmth | March 26, 2008 3:08 PM

Chelsea Clinton is, in fact, a Clinton - which means that she will obscure, deny, lie, deceive, and obstruct - just like Bill and Hillary have done all their lives.

It's what the Clintons do best, and it's what half of all the Democrats love about them.

Posted by: One_American | March 26, 2008 3:08 PM

The Lewinsky affair (pun intended) led to an impeachment trial that could have foundamentally shifted the power within the Executive branch of our federal government. It was an important political event.

Chelsea is a grown woman who has thrown herself into the political arena to campaign for her mother.

So, what was wrong with asking a political figure a question that was of paramount importance to our political system? Contrary to Chelsea Clinton's claim, a potential dismissing of a sitting President is and should be every American's business.

What the questioner asked was certainly more relevent of a question that asking if Obama is a muslim. A person's own religious belief is his personal business, does not affect the running of our government, and certainly does not affect our government as did an impeachment trial.

It seems that Clinton supporters are trying to have it both ways.

Posted by: DL | March 26, 2008 3:09 PM

If Chelsea can't stand the heat, she better stay out of the kitchen.

It wasn't but a few months ago that Bill was all hot to sue that pizza joint in NYC for "DARING" to post her picture with the owner. Only the fact that he didn't have a legal leg to stand on kept him from making a Supreme Court case out of it.

Now they are sticking lil' wallflower Chelsea out in front of the whole world and making here a Hillary surrogate, they (and she) better get used to the pointed questions real quick.

Posted by: laboo | March 26, 2008 3:09 PM

Some guy wrote:
"You know. I'm a republican, and even I don't understand the interest in the Clinton's sex life."

Ha! Republicans not interested?

(Q) How did you get a majority of both houses and the presidency and do untold damage to untold numbers of people?
(A) By styling endless outrage over Bill's sex life and the lies he told about it.

Oh but now that the Republicans are in the (airport) toilet, suddenly it is just a personal matter?

You see, actually, sex is not the issue.

It is about economic damage, environmental damage and thousands of lives lost and ruined because the Clintons' lies let fools like you elect George Bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:09 PM

Yes, the question was fair; it was specifically asking about Hiliary's credibility. The question, on its face, was not personal in nature. However uncomfortable it is for Chelsea to have to field questions which may, tangentially, involve her father's infidelity the actual question was valid regarding her mother's credibility during that time in their lives. It would not be appropriate for anyone to ask Chelsea her personal feelings regarding her parents and the affair but in light of her mother running for President of the United States this particular question was fair.

Posted by: Patricia Davis | March 26, 2008 3:10 PM

If she is going to be out campaigning she is bound to get a question that makes her uncomfortable at some point. He didn't ask a personal question in my opinion. He wasn't asking about anything other than Hilary's credibility and strength that she showed through a crisis. I think it was a valid question and while she may not have liked it, she should have answered it briefly. That the whole crisis showed what an incredibly strong willed woman Hilary is.

Posted by: AnnD | March 26, 2008 3:10 PM

Chelsea's a big girl now and ANY question is fair game seeing she is in the GAME. I'm sure she realizes what her father's legacy entails.

Posted by: Spud | March 26, 2008 3:10 PM

Only an idiot paper like Washington Post would post this as a 'dispassionate' survey. Your obvious bais against HRC is all over your paper all the time...so why be so hypocritical? Just come out and say it that you are delirious with joy about all and anything that embarasses or humiliates any of the Clintons. You have zero credibility as an objective and intelligent newspaper. But you are right up there with STAR and National Enquirer in gutter politics and sensationalism.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:11 PM

Sally Quin nailed exactly. If you don't want the spot light, don't compaign for your mom...Chelsea is a 29 year old adult, Standford educated Big Girl...all questions are fair game.

Posted by: Sally Q | March 26, 2008 3:11 PM

Fair? Yes. Morally right? No. I think she handled it exactly right

Posted by: Phx AZ | March 26, 2008 3:11 PM

"Posted by: M. Class | March 26, 2008 02:58 PM

You know. I'm a republican, and even I don't understand the interest in Clinton's sex life...."

That makes you not a republican! A true republican would be immensely interested in other peoples' sex lives and morals, stains on the dresses, iterative verbal descriptions of acts and events, dress malfunctions from every possible angels and magnification, etc.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:11 PM

It's quite obivious due to the nature of campaigning that any question is valid because the response tends to lend insight on the nature of the person. Sending in others to stand as your representative is a risky business as their thoughts and responses can be, and will be, interpreted as your own. The validity of the question is unmistakable. ANY question is a valid question...especially in politics.

One cannot separate the affairs of Bill from Hilary without distancing from the whole. That is to say that since she's tied her campaign and her validity to her husband's stint at president, so too does she bond herself to his pitfalls.

Evan's question was a great opportunity to show the strength of character that both Chelsea and Hilary claim to have. An opportunity wasted because the response was one of terse admonishment. This doesn't reinforce positive feelings of the Clinton campaign, it only serves as another example of a touchy issue dodged when facing it head on would prove so much more strength.

Was the question rude? Sure. Was it appropriate? Absolutely. Remember, the Lewinsky debacle was more than gossip. It halted the nation for something approaching 8 months. Don't trivialize the issue by saying it wasn't any of his business. It was ALL of our business regardless of our personal feelings of such touchy topic.

Posted by: Shumina | March 26, 2008 3:12 PM

Of coarse it is fair. Any question should be fair. This was a major issue with our president and also an issue that almost had him impeached! Chealseas mommy lost all of her credibility this week from her fairy tale Bosnia story. Thats why she did not answer the question on crdibility. There is not much room left to work there !

Posted by: Menace | March 26, 2008 3:12 PM

Fair territory? Yes. Phrased right? maybe not. The character of a candidate is and always has been fair game. We expect our elected leaders to hold themselves to a fairly high standard. Is this right? That's up to you, but it's how things are. The question of why a woman who portrays herself as a tough, independent, woman would stand for a man who was unfaithful to her more than once does speak about her character. Why didn't Hillary stand up for herself? The overly forgiving, cowed, wife doesn't mesh with how she presents herself to the public. Is she a fighter or not? She wouldn't fight for herself, will she fight for us? These are the questions the Lewinsky/Jones scandals bring up. And whether she likes it or not, Chelsea is stumping for her choice for President as much as she is for her mom, so questions on her character are fair game.

Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM

If the equestion was about Lewinsky, or her father's affair with Lewinsky, I would say no.

But the question was about credibility as illuminated by Hillary's response to the Lewinsky affair, not the affair itself. So the question was completed within bounds.

Chelsea should have been happy to answer that question, and should have a a good answer ready.

She's a grown woman. Time to grow up.

Posted by: Stephanie | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM

I am a rabid Obama supporter. The question was off limits and in poor taste. Chelsea's answer was on the mark and helped her mother's campaign. I suspect the question was gratuitous and not related to any campaign. Kinda like the beat the beach remark by a McCain supporter.

Posted by: Apocalypse | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM

I agree with dee5.

Posted by: chompers | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM

Quote: "Bill Clinton wasn't a good husband, but he was still a good president."

Say what, he will be on record as one of the worst of the 1900s. The good economy came as a result of the dot.com boom and his cutting of military spending. The congress under Clinton was ruled by Republicans. They came into power shortly after he was elected and were still there when he left. He was impeached for lying under oath. Unbelievable that you would think he was a good president.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM

Just remember who put Chelsea willingly in that compromised position in the first place. It is her parents. Having put her out there themselves, they are, in a legal expression, estopped from saying that it is unfair that she should be asked to answer such politically charged questions. That would be a game of no-brainer. Everybody knew about the Lewinsky scandal and it was a matter of time before the subject came up. They decided to put their girl though the muck and now shouldn't be complaining because she is getting what they surely knew that she was likely to get.

Posted by: Agoodlawyer | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM

Democrats love a fellow Democrat who lies - it's how Democrats have gotten what they wanted in the past.

That's why they want to defend "poor little Chelsea".

Posted by: One_American | March 26, 2008 3:14 PM

Completely fair. More than fair, necessary, lest we forget just who it is we are dealing with.

Posted by: scorcher | March 26, 2008 3:14 PM

I thought it was a fair question. I didn't think it was great - as Bill Clinton's behavior is really more a question about his OWN credibility - but all of this sudden hue and cry about the question being so inappropriate is really just politics. If anything, Hillary's handling of the matter probably ENHANCED her credibility. If the senator from New York is having credibility problems, it's probably more from some of the things she has said and one on the campaign trail. But if people want to ask about an issue that practically derailed the country for a year or more, I think it's fair game. Chelsea is no longer that little girl in braces. She's capable of handling herself - and did so with the question.

Posted by: Bill Kilpatrick | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

Yes, it's fair. Chelsea is an adult, representing her mother who is running for the presidency, and if she wins she will be our president. We need to know the truth. I just learned that Bill's sexual encounters with Lewinsky lasted over 1 1/2 years. Hillary was in the home 7 or 8 of those times those two connected in the Oval Office, in the closet, the hall-way, etc. Why would anyone want him back there? If Hillary couldn't handle him then, what will she be able to do to rein him in should she be busy with the presidency. This is more a marriage of convenience and striving for personal power than true love. Her latest comments about her trip "under fire" wasn't "misspoke." It was a lie! And Chelsea publicly defended what her mother had said! Get a clue!

Posted by: Angel | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

Like it or not Monica Lewisnky is part of Hillary's White House experience. Those campaigning for her should be able to politly answer without playing the victim card. Bill Clinton plays victim almost everytime he talks. It is always someone else's fault. Hey it was the Clintons that brought this on so either answer the question or don't campaign.

Posted by: Bo | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

Sally Quinn of CBS, did you say Bill Clinton "fouled the nest" you hypocite! You fouled a nest too didn't you? Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Do you have kids? Since you are a journalist reporting on television can we ask them about your affair with a married man??? Can we ask anyone in your family and your friends!!

Posted by: kevin | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

I am a rabid Obama supporter. The question was off limits and in poor taste. Chelsea's answer was on the mark and helped her mother's campaign. I suspect the question was gratuitous and not related to any campaign. Kinda like the beat the beach remark by a McCain supporter.

Posted by: Apocalypse | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

What difference does it make to the american people how HRC handle the scandal? Most women would have walked away from the men that did that but she chose to stay with him. How does that factor in our choice on the canidate? Would it sway your vote if there was a scandal that involve Obama's wife cheating on him and he decided to stay with her? I have to say it takes a might strong women to indure that and still find the couage to except it and move on... Hell for all we know they have an open relationship and that is why it is where it is. We need a leader and I don't think these personal area's should be a consideration in our vote. Wake up America... Vote for the person you feel is going to make this country better and get us out of the hell we have created... my two cents

Posted by: Ignorance | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

The question was ridiculous! I am sorry that Chelsea had to go through all that she did as a girl but there is no way she can give an answer to that question that would satisfy a reporter who isn't smart enough to ask questions that add information to the campaign. It's time that reporters heard more often - "That's none of your business"!

Posted by: Alishia | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

The question is tactless and stupid, designed to make her uncomfortable and stir controversy.

That said, this is a political campaign. Is Chelsea actively campaigning or not? Yes she is, so she needs to anticipate and handle all questions. She arguably did handle it, but I think she could have handled it more elegantly. A better answer would have been "Absolutely not. Next question, please."

Posted by: Hypnotoad | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

The question is relevant simply because of the continuing Clinton hand grenades at Obama.It is the business of the general public since it became a public issue. The young lady needs to run an appropriate answer by Mom and Dad, and then use it. "None of your business" in politics is not the appropriate answer. Why force one candidate to answer everything and let the other make up stories about bullets and imaginary action in Bosnia.

Posted by: Bob J. | March 26, 2008 3:16 PM

Sally Quinn of CBS, did you say Bill Clinton "fouled the nest" you hypocite! You fouled a nest too didn't you? Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Do you have kids? Since you are a journalist reporting on television and are a public figure can we ask them about your affair with a married man??? Can we ask anyone in your family and your friends?!! Hey Harry ask Sally about her affair on the air, we're curious!!!

Posted by: kevin | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

Is it fair to use a fake question at an open meeting about a candidate in order to promote oneself on the national news?

Is it good journalistic judgement to focus an old scandal without a resolution instead of issues of people's welfare?

Posted by: Irenbe | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

Also ask her why her Mother had Vince Foster Killed.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

Also ask her why her Mother had Vince Foster Killed.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

Obama should answer questions about his church/pastor. He CHOSE that church/pastor and that says something about him as a person.

Chelsea, however, DID NOT CHOOSE her father or mother.

It's much easier to get up and walk out of a building (church) than it is to walk away from your parents, no matter what they may or may not have done.

God Bless America! We definitely need all that we can get.

Posted by: NC0109 | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

What...I don't have to register?
What is worse--Infidelity by your husband or bedding down with a indited felon- Tony Rezko?
Hillary is the victim, why should she be
vilified by what her husband did?
To all those- men and women- who have criticized Hillary for what her husband did,I have something to ask you: If you've never cheated on your mate, stand up.
Hmmm, why is everybody sitting?

Posted by: Oscar M. Coile | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM

What...I don't have to register?
What is worse--Infidelity by your husband or bedding down with a indited felon- Tony Rezko?
Hillary is the victim, why should she be
vilified by what her husband did?
To all those- men and women- who have criticized Hillary for what her husband did,I have something to ask you: If you've never cheated on your mate, stand up.
Hmmm, why is everybody sitting?

Posted by: Oscar M. Coile | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM

It is a fair question. Why ask Obama about his pastor's rants/sermons? It had nothing to do with him directly, he was not there and it was his pastor's opinion. Chelsea has been with her parents for 20+ years and who knows them best? Chelsea. If she is going to campaign for her mother, she better develop a thick skin and be prepared for the hard questions.

Posted by: Kaye | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM

Also ask her why her Mother had Vince Foster Killed.

Posted by: billary is a a criminal | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM

Chelsea has benefited greatly from her parents success. She is a highly educated adult woman who makes $200k per year, more then the average American family of four persons per household. Yes, it was a fair question. Her answer was condescending - she should be ashamed of herself. How rude.

She can not be compared to Senator Obama's two minor children who has not even attended middle school yet.

Posted by: Felicity | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM

Queen Hillary & Co. always have the same M.O. Anything recent is "still under review" and any of their past scandals are all "old news". Rose Law Firm records, Cattle Futures profits, the records in Vince Foster's office, Travelgate, Health Care Taskforce secrecy, excusing her husband's perjury, her brother's influence in Bill's terms...these are all Hillary's "experience" amount to as far as I can see - all fair game. Buck up, Chelsea, if you want to run a carny game at the Hillary Campaign Carnival, better be prepared to deal with the rubes who's money you want.

Posted by: Mr. M | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM

Yes well students want to know her opinion about issues right? The issue was Hillary Clinton's reputation. That's why they put her out there. You can't expect students to have the same decorum as adults.

But what's interesting to me is that she said what Bill Clinton should have said when they first asked him about Monica Lewinsky in the first place and his family would not be in this position. That's the truth also: The presidents sex life is really none of our business. The cover up is always worse than the crime.

Although I think Chelsea could have handled it a little better. At least she was honest. Which is more than I can say for her parents.

Posted by: UncleRemus | March 26, 2008 3:19 PM

That type of tabloid journalism will reduce your subscriber base. I am no Hillary supporter, but that was in poor taste and is not even a question that should be asked of Hillary. Let's stick to the real issues that have an impact on the planet and our lives.

Posted by: Ken | March 26, 2008 3:19 PM

The problem here is,it is not weither Chelsea
has to answer or not.what the hell the clintons are doing still running for election
we know that she will not have any chance to be the nominee.this people are rutheless to destroy the dimocratic party.please go vacation or do something stayout.

Posted by: tito | March 26, 2008 3:19 PM

Of course it's fair to ask Chelsea anything you like. That's why it's called a question and answer session.

Likewise, it is fair for her to answer (or not) as she pleases. She is an articulate young woman -- raised and well groomed in a very politically astute family. She is also playing a high stakes game in helping to get her mother elected -- and doing it well will involve taking a few risks. So be it.

One of the things that has always bothered me about the Bush administration is their tendency to stage manage such events down to the point where they are prescreening questions from the audience and only admitting those who fully support the President's policy and agenda (and leaving any dissenting viewpoints out on the street).

Whereas, the (Bill) Clinton administration seemed to obsess on photo opportunities -- so they gave us pretty pictures and an occasional lofty speech -- despite the fact the events themselves were often devoid of any real substance.

Posted by: Vic | March 26, 2008 3:20 PM

If she doesn't want to answer questions or be on camera than GET OFF the campaign trial.

Everyone is free to ask any question they want of her as long as she has adopted a public posture. It is a simple fact of public life in America or almost any other free country on the planet.

From here on out, when Chelsea or her minions start shouting to the press; "Shut off the camera! Shut off the camera!" The press ought to be straight up telling her "No! We do not shut off the camera in a free and open democratic public political event."

Chelsea needs to go back to school and learn about democratic freedom. Too bad her parents didn't teach her these values at home.

Posted by: Richard | March 26, 2008 3:20 PM

The people who suggest that Obama's kids be asked those questions are missing the point. Obama's kids are not vigorously campaigning for their father. They support him of course, but Chelsea has been going to college campuses, endorsing her mother, which means she must be able to answer any question. If Obama's kids were campaigning as much as Chelsea, then I would agree. However, Obama has kept his kids out of the action, whereas Hillary has put her daughter on the front lines.

Posted by: Jon | March 26, 2008 3:21 PM

cab91 up there. You are right in saying that Hillary should not be made responsible for her husband's behavior. By the same token however, Obama shouldn't be made responsible for his pastors beliefs either. Yet you and many other Hillary supporters like you made so much noise about it. A double standard? Absolutely, as anything we expect from Hillary and her supporters.

Posted by: NotoHillary | March 26, 2008 3:21 PM

Good lord, ignorance. Your ID says it. Hillary stayed with Bill because she thought he would help her be crowned president. When she loses, I give the marriage six months.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:22 PM

But Chelsea did answer the question!

Posted by: Kishor Gala | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM

People like Larkin are the ones that get cheated on over and over. Ignorance does that

Posted by: John H | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM

Let's ask Obama's kids about his doping days too and what they feel about it?

So one candidate's spouse had an affair and lied about it. BIG DEAL. How does it relate to the candidate's credibility?

Why should a child have to answer about parents' sex/intimate lives?

Posted by: Pat | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM

Absolutely, if a candidate is expected to answer for the statements of the pastor at the church he attends then certainly the unethical and illegal actions a candidate's own spouse are fair game.

Posted by: B | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM

Clinton supporters:

You do realize that this question came from one of your own right? It is incredibly amusing to me that some of you low income, ignorant, Clinton supporting yokels want to tie this to Obama in some way. It's not Obama's fault that you ask idiotic questions.

Hillary Clinton - Supported by morons everywhere.

Posted by: lmao | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM

Dr S said
"I used to think Bill would be judged appropriately by the voters on round 2 reelection. His winning speaks volumes about the American publics attitude towards moral character."

Bill's affair with Monica began in 1995, but wasn't public until after he was reelected, was it?

I think you could also say
"I used to think BUSH would be judged appropriately by the voters on round 2 reelection. His winning speaks volumes about the American publics attitude towards moral character."

Posted by: Jack | March 26, 2008 3:24 PM

No, it is not a fair question. It is not even a relevant question. Good job Chelsea!

Posted by: L. Jay | March 26, 2008 3:24 PM

Perhaps it is better to phrase the question differently: "Should a woman leave her husband if he is a lying, cheating, Perjurer who has been disbarred and has humiliated her in her chosen profession, or are you completely against divorce?"

Posted by: david | March 26, 2008 3:24 PM

Oscar M. Coile - Applaud!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:24 PM

I'm an Obama supporter and I was sorry to hear that question posed to Chelsea. I would hope that she could be spared from questions on this subject.

Posted by: JAC | March 26, 2008 3:24 PM

Yes it is all fair in Love and War. But more commonly Politics and its vulgar form. I would say that if you step into the ring you should expect punches and slight misses. If she is not pimped by her parents on the campaign trail, she should stay away or even stay home and bake cookies. She has a choice to participate in the campaign or go back to her job. Lat I heard it is not a bad job either. There is no protocol or rules that she can claim to avoid by special privilege.

I personally would not have even considered asking the question because I would think it is inappropriate and not relevant to the capabilities to run as President. I would want to scrutinize the candidates throughly on their ability to hold office based on capabilities, knowledge, and experience. I would not shield away from the question either.

BTW I am supporter Clinton

Posted by: MrDiamond | March 26, 2008 3:25 PM

Yes and someone needs to ask Hillary that same question..

Posted by: william Bolding | March 26, 2008 3:25 PM

The irony here is that Obama is gaining more ground while vacationing on the beach, because the Clintons are trying so hard to get into the White House again.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:25 PM

to jmcauli1

Please take into consideration, that minimizing unempleyment and showing a budget surplus is first of all not a present the Clinton Bill has given to us.

The global economy and lots of fact in the 1990s where responsible for the short recuscitation of the US economy, that started to decline again, after Clintons treaties with NAFTA and other states. Not only for that reason but also, because he was thinking and believing in the financial world of his associates and friends. That was the real trouble, he left the helpless GWB, who ruined the ecenomy completely.

Car industry: gone
Manufacture indutry: gone
coal industry: gone
building and constructing industry: gone

The Moneymakers financed other industries in the world, rather then the US econamy.

Look at your streets, interstates, governmetioal buildings, large city circels, ports, etc etc.
Look at Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadephia, New York, Chicago etc etc .
All the jobs have gone, and the Silicon Valey companies and Microsoft, Google, Intel etc etc have 90% of their jobs outside US. Inside their empley bearly 70% Asian, Indian, European people.

That's America by now, and it started in the 1990s and was ruined by a guy named George W. who did not know, what to to when he started. Therefore, just in the period of ecenomis trouble, he started a war, just to concentrate the people to something else.

BUT, now, the whole roof will collapse, as the tremendous amout of liabilities the US can never be repaid by America. You are now the pupet on the string of China, Korea, Japan, Saudi A, Kuweit and in future times also of Iran and Russia, wait and see.

As long as USA is not producing decent goods to export, the economy will decline more and more.

Posted by: sieweke | March 26, 2008 3:26 PM

IF SHE IS GOING TO BE OUT FRONT AND REPRESENT HER MOTHER, SHE IS OLD ENOUGH TO BE EXPECTED TO ANSWER.
IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN .
SAME FOR CHELSEA CLINTON, IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE QUESTIONS DON'T BE THERE! BUT DON'T EXPECT TO GET A FREE RIDE FROM QUESTIONS. YOU CAN'T ALWAYS PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU ARE ASKED!

Posted by: p fine | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

That was one of the fairest question that was not answered. Lewinsky ha ha

Posted by: jeff | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

It's in poor taste. That never stopped republicans before.

Posted by: Banyun | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

yes, absolutely. she is sent out to answer questions. The question wasn't about the affair; it was about her mother, who wrote about it. it's fair game if you are using your family to handle such a position. If she doesn't have the wit to handle it any better, then keep her smart alec, rude, secretive self at home standing by her own man.

If the public expects Obama to discuss his pastor and religion then her father's impeachment is fair game.

Posted by: TK | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

NCO,

Chelsea no, but
Hillary DID have the choice to walk out on a man who humiliated her, her daughter and the Presidency on numerous occasions. She enabled his lies and did terrible damage to her political party, damage that has brought untold suffering to millions.

Obama's preacher is a nasty fool, but for Hillary Clinton to get self-righteous about leaving anything is comical. You can call that political choice a sign of strength or courage, but most of us see it as a lust for power.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

What was so horrible about a question? Chelsea Clinton, when did it become so wrong to ask a question?
Chelsea hateful response is like the hateful response her dad had about Monica Lewinsky, "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Posted by: Stan | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

When are the failings of the husband affect the credibility of the wife. Was she helping him score? And how does that reflect to the children. Since they did not have a say nor knowledge of the affair? This is just another case of sensualist journalism were the shock value is more important then the content of the message. We should be asking questions about the war, economic, personal liberties, Not just who Bill Clinton sleeping with. I believe this commentator did a discredit to her self and her company. That's my 2 cents

Posted by: steve | March 26, 2008 3:29 PM

Is it fair game to ask Chelsea Clinton about the Lewinsky scandal?

Absolutely....

Like Hillary and Bill, Chelsea has been well versed in how to avoid the tough questions - if you wish to be in the public eye than you must answer the publics questions!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:30 PM

NO!

People think the line is not drawn ANYWHERE anymore. INCORRECT. We still have lines you just don't cross if your momma didn't raise a complete CROTCH-SCRATCHING cave dweller. Mind your manners, can't you?

You don't talk to the child (even if the child is 60 years old) about how her father's horribly humiliating, publicly exposed sexcapades affects their mother, right out in front of the whole world. Chelsea handled it fabulously (and I am no fan of any Clinton, even Chelsea). I'm SO GLAD the embarrassment was turned right back at the perpetrator. I hope the asker of that question is a little pile of gray ashes from burning embarrassment.

The "anything goes, and I do mean anything" atmosphere that our current MEDIA has given us is what led to this. It's shameful, how we act.

Oh yeah, this too. Obama '08.

But if HRC is the nominee, I'll vote for her against McSame.

Posted by: Carly Corday | March 26, 2008 3:30 PM

The question just left a bad taste in my mouth

Posted by: WP | March 26, 2008 3:31 PM

"Posted by: david | March 26, 2008 03:24 PM

Perhaps it is better to phrase the question differently: "Should a woman leave her husband if he is a lying, cheating, Perjurer who has been disbarred and has humiliated her in her chosen profession, or are you completely against divorce?"

And should a woman leave a husband who is responsible for wrongful deaths of 4,000 innocent soldiers and countless children, women and men?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:31 PM

It was a GREAT question mainly to see how Chelsea would handle it. She BLEW IT! She asserted herself as a spoiled little privelaged rich girl and used her million-dollar education to make the questioner feel stupid. And most importantly was afraid to answer honestly. In my opinion, it speaks VOLUMES about her's and her family's true character.

Posted by: TLQ | March 26, 2008 3:31 PM

Ever since debates became televised we've cared more about the person running than the ideas he or she espoused. Consequently, it does matter if Hillary is a "strong" or "courageous" candidate because she'll be judged - and is currently judged - on perceptions of those characteristics. Since Chelsea is in a unique position to give us descriptions on her mom's character, questions pertaining to her mom's credibility or personality are fair because we the consumers of media have made those issues matter. This is unfortunate and we should only focus on the candidate's stances on the issues but those days have been long gone and will not return. I'm surprised nobody has asked her that before.

Posted by: Peter C | March 26, 2008 3:31 PM

Of course it's a fair question for any Clinton campaign rep, incl. Chelsea, who's working to have both Clintons back in the White House. It's the nature of her parents relationship and their decisions during the 90's that turned these private matters into public issues. She should have answered the question rather than acting indignant. Many voters are still indignant that Hillary stayed with a man who cheated with an intern who was 6 years younger than Chelsea is now.

Posted by: Roger Clinton | March 26, 2008 3:32 PM

I think fairness is irrelevant. There is a question and she had to respond responsibly if she is campaigning for her mother. In that regard, "non of your business" is a stupid answer. The guy didn't ask a personal question. He asked if the scandal hurt her mother's standing. This is a totally legitimate question. She could respond that her mother's standing is different from her father and "no, it doesn't" for example or so.

Posted by: Amir | March 26, 2008 3:33 PM

Yes, yes! Ha-ha-ha ! She wants to be the ONLY girl in the world having her both parents nominated for presidents and can't take such simple question? Give me a break...She should be ashamed of Clintons lies!! and sak them to get out of the race. NOW!!!

Posted by: Rudy | March 26, 2008 3:34 PM

It was a legitimate question. It concerned the judgment of both Hillary and Bill. It happened in a public place. Yes, the Oval Office is a public place. The incident demonstrated the lack of respect for that office by Bill Clinton. Hillary made her choice to stand by him, not out of love, but out of her political calculations, because even then, she knew that she was going to run for that very office. It is all about her political ambition and people should be wary of persons who are that power hungry and calculating. It is unfortunate that good girl Chelsea had to put up with this, but it was a politically fair game. The Clintons themselves would not have missed an opportunity like that, given the chance. No, not them.

Posted by: NotanotherClinton | March 26, 2008 3:34 PM

the media is scare of Clinton, that´s why they are not fair with HC. They prefere Hussein Obama ´coz when he take the power the madia will make the circus.

Posted by: Backsama | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM

What's so personal about asking if your mother's credible was damaged during the scandal? It wasn't a question regarding private family communication, it was a question regarding public statements Senator Clinton made at that time. That's free game, especially when she is campaigning across America for her mother. She can't cherry pick and only asnwer the easy questions that are favorable to the campaign. If "that's none of your business" is the best she can come up with from her Oxford education, than she should get her money back.

What would have been extremely easy, and what she should have said was: "absolute not." Instead she ducked the question, and her body language, by nodding up and down (implying yes) rather than left to right (which would have implied no), was pretty damaging.

Posted by: Tom | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM

I am for either candidate and I expect one of them to take hold of that white house. Both of them share similar stances on THE ISSUES which is why I will support them. Obama's my preference, but if he fails to continue, I will support Hillary with full force.

Bottom line, there is no double standard folks. It is not Hillary's fault for what Bill did. Bill is responsible for Bills actions. Hillary loved Bill beyond his imperfections. That's the true definition of love. She had other options, yes, but she made her choice. How does her choice affect us? Has she harmed us with her choice? Has her action infringed on our rights? She chose to stay, so what. As long as she continues to fight with her stance on THE ISSUES, that's all I'm worried about. Likewise, Obama very well has options which he's addressed in his speech in plain English where he stands. He chose to stay at a church where apparently there existed an imperfect pastor (that shouldn't be a surprise-pastors are no more or less human than all the rest of us), and apparently Obama loves this pastor beyond his imperfections. Obama's attendance at this church, simply being seated at this particular church has ultimately done no harm to us, nor has he infringed our rights, simply with his choice of attendance. We have, however, heard his stance which couldn't have been any more blunt and straight forward. That's Obama's choice. So what? As long as he continues on as he is, and he maintains his stance (similar to Hillary's) on THE ISSUES, again I'm fine.

I'd rather focus on THE ISSUES, than focus on petty issues. The Issues hold more weight than this nonsense.

Obama or Hillary '08: I'll agree with these humans before I'll agree with McCain. I hope people will all think beyond themselves and think about those whom aren't currently sharing our comforts to surrender ourselves to nonsense over common sense in terms of THE ISSUES. We have lost valuable members of our military and every +1 individual counts in regards to our military strength. They should be used wisely don't you think? Families have lost crucial members. That weighs more than the nonsense people choose to surrender themselves to.

Posted by: Obama 2008 | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM

Well, it would be helpful to hear the question rather than having it interpreted for me, but I do believe it was probably fair game.

Frankly, all this crap about Obama and his minister and Hillary's response to the Lewinsky fiasco really isn't adding much to the discussion re the candidates' positions. But it sure smells like Fox News. If I want fake news, I have John Stewart for that.

Bill Clinton's legacy is his family's legacy. Chelsea is an adult and needs to develop a response to it. If the response is "I am not going to answer it" or "It is none of your business", then so be it.

Sometimes the US press isn't reporting news; sometimes the US press is confusing its activities with that of People magazone or the Weekly World News. The US press, unfortunately, is starting to look more like a British rag. Sad.

Posted by: Header | March 26, 2008 3:36 PM

Sorry Chelsea, but it was your choice to campaign and you are no longer a child, and remember it is your mother Hillary who is running the most dirty political for a long time.

Chelsea is not innocent when it comes to having the same arrogant attitude as the rest of the Clinton Clan, in a London interview a few months back she declared that she will be the second female president after her mum, the same mum who said the race would be all over by the 5th February!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:36 PM

Instead of getting mad at the person asking the questions, she should be getting mad at her dad for putting her in these ackward positions.
She and her mom must be pretty dumb to think that these questions would not be asked, you think they would have acted out a better answer. Nice going for putting you kid out there to field great questions. Makes you shake you head sometimes!

Posted by: HO HO | March 26, 2008 3:36 PM

You bet it is fair!the democrats give the republicans hell about everything!!!!If you can't take the heat ,get out of the kitchen!!!!

Posted by: john | March 26, 2008 3:37 PM

It may be fair but it isn't very classy.

Posted by: Scott | March 26, 2008 3:38 PM

I personally think it was a thoughtless question to a daughter but if Miss Clinton puts her head above the parapit on behalf of her mum then she should be prepared to have it shot off. Reading through the comments above I think the reaction to the question has proved thought provoking and it would have been interesting to have seen the reaction of her mum in the same situation. A potential leader of a great and powerful country will face far tougher questions/problems in the future that will have significantly more impact than an affair. Just a thought from an outsider.

Posted by: United Kingdom | March 26, 2008 3:39 PM

It is fair for the student to ask any question he wants, but it is also fair for Chelsea to answer that question in any way she wants.

Posted by: nancy | March 26, 2008 3:39 PM

Absolutely not... and I'm for Obama.

Posted by: Blake | March 26, 2008 3:40 PM

I believe a more appropriate question for Chelsea would be how often she came home late from a date and told her parents she didn't have sex "according to Dad".

Imagine Bill Clinton hanging around the White House with nothing to do.

Once his affair with Monica Lewinsky became public it became our business. Bill handled the publicity by lying about it until he was caught.

We saw how Hillary handled his fooling around when she was First Lady. If she would have asked for a divorce she would have given up her dream of becoming President one day.

The question we need to ask today is how will she handle a similar situation as President of the United States?

Posted by: Misterstan | March 26, 2008 3:40 PM

Quote: "But if HRC is the nominee, I'll vote for her against McSame."

That about says it.
You will vote for the person who was proven a liar about the "dodging sniper fire" and then said she was "sleep-deprived and misspoke"?
You will vote for the person who said she was against NAFTA all along to gain votes in Ohio, but the records prove she was attending pro-NAFTA meetings.
You will vote for the person who says she played a major role in the Irish Peace agenda, but everyone there says she did not.
You will vote for the person who is a proven liar to get what she wants.
What has happened to the democratic party that I once knew and loved??

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:40 PM

It is fair for the student to ask any question he wants, but it is also fair for Chelsea to answer that question in any way she wants.

Posted by: nancy | March 26, 2008 3:41 PM

It is fair for the student to ask any question he wants, but it is also fair for Chelsea to answer that question in any way she wants.

Posted by: nancy | March 26, 2008 3:41 PM

Chelsea Clinton is an adult who is campaigning for her mother. She was "off-limits" when she was a minor child of a president, but that is not her role any more.

The public has the right to ask any question. It is really that simple - the people have the right to question everything about the candidates, including their personal history. If she (or any family member of a candidate) does not want to answer these types of questions, then she should not put herself out there on the campaign trail.

Posted by: AFC | March 26, 2008 3:41 PM

Yes, it is a fair question. If Chelsea can not handle the media or being asked tough questions...she should stay off the campaign trail. Of course, now she is the victim, just like her mother. When things are not in their favor, they just happen to become the victims.

Posted by: Renee, Washington, DC | March 26, 2008 3:42 PM

Chelsea's response was revealing. Most of us still remember her as the little girl the Clintons brought to Washington - all pigtails and smiles. That's probably why she's been recruited to campaign for her mother. Whatever they may think of her parents, people have a positive view of Chelsea.

But the response I saw was pretty ugly. If Hillary gets tagged as manipulative and controlling, there are echoes of it in Chelsea's deft slap-down of a question that wasn't about the Clintons' private affairs but about how a public scandal has affected the public reputation of the senator from New York.

Chelsea's response - that this is "none of your business" - shows her to be as shrewd as her parents. She took a question about an actual campaign issue and turned it into a personal attack. But in bearing her claws, I wonder if Chelsea hasn't also set fire to her halo. As soon as people realize that little Chelsea is a 29-year-old who can fling darts with the best of 'em, it may permanently change the dynamic.

Posted by: Bill Kilpatrick | March 26, 2008 3:42 PM

Here is the question I want to ask her or her father, "Whom would Juanita Broaddrick report have reported her rape to if it was the attorney general of the sate she lived in that raped her?"

People have criticized Ms. Broaddrick for not coming forward immediately after her attack.

Bill Clinton was the attorney general of Arkansas at the time.

Hillary Clinton and the liberal press have labeled/libeled Ms Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Eileen Wellstone and many others as "bimbos". I recall the term "bimbo eruption" repeated by so called feminists. Then they call them liars. And anyone who brings them as liars. What hope is there for having a "vetting" when the facts are ignored by the press like this?

Yes of course people have the right to ask an adult Chelsea Clinton while campaigning about her mother and father's relations with their victims. Absolutely.

Posted by: Alvin | March 26, 2008 3:43 PM

Whole the question itself is a rather poor and tactless one from a college studnet trying to talk to Chelsea Clinton, I think her response ranks even lower on the scale of tact and graciousness. There are many ways to tell some one to mind their own business, ut that has to be the one of the rudest methods to do so. It was not necessarily just her words, but her tone of voice. When you, a relative, or anyone you are campaigning for is running for political office it is necessariy maintain a level of calm and composure that will portray the candidate's political style. I can say that if an American President ever responded in such a manner to another world leader in that way, it would be a calamity, regardless of the nature of the conversation or question. As a result of Hillary Clinton's poorly run campaign and her apparent lack of ability to lead one of the greatest nations in the world, my vote goes to Obama, the clear-cut choice.

Posted by: Homer Simpson | March 26, 2008 3:43 PM

I do not think that question was a fair one to ask Chelsea Clinton if only because it is asking her to comment on the marriage of her parents. Do you seriously think she would have any reasonably objective view on it?
If a problematic spouse is truly something that should bar a president from performing well in office then Ford and Lincoln alone should never have been president.
Yes, Chelsea is a big girl and at the age of 28, she can hold her own on the campaign trail, but that question was pure sensationalism, not honest curiousity.

Posted by: Amanda | March 26, 2008 3:45 PM

Simple, Bill Clinton paid for what he has done with impeachment. Why keep bringing up other than to stir something during the election? Why bother asking about Hillary's credibility from Chelsea, Bill or anyone that is related to Hillary? This type of question, just to stir things up and has no other meaning other than just that.

Funny that the George W. Bush is responsible for 4000 soldiers death, Iraq war, and economic down turn, and he's still holding his position. No one dare to ask the question of how US mistakenly went to war with Iraq thinking Saddam has something to do with Osama. We're going to pay for a war that we did not wish to happen in the first place. For oil? The oil price hits the highest record in US history. For glory? Who's glory? To eliminate terrorism? Saddam doesn't even want to deal with Osama.

Clear your mind and find the right candidate who can lead this country better then the current president.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:46 PM

Well, would you ask Caroline Kennedy whether her father's relationship with Marilyn Monroe helped or hurt him? Would you ask Carter's daughter how she felt about his lusting in his heart? How about the Bush twins views on their parents' sex life?

No, I didn't think so.

Posted by: Chicago1 | March 26, 2008 3:46 PM

Why would you ask the daughter of or the woman who was cheated on about HER credibility?? Bill did the deed w/ Monica - ask one of them.

My father cheated on my mother when I was a child. Is my mother somehow to blame for this? Why should it be any different for the Clintons? I just don't get how or why the public hold Bill's failure against Hillary. It makes no sense.

Posted by: Bebe | March 26, 2008 3:46 PM

I Really hope Hillary becomes president. The whole family are all great people. About the question that was asked though? In my opinion, that was extremely rude. Well handled by Chelsey.

Posted by: Shawn | March 26, 2008 3:47 PM

Knowing the Clintons they probably put a plant in the audience to ask that question.

Chelsea was given the right sound bite answer that will once again portray the Clintons as the victims.

They have done this before and will continue to do this.

Posted by: MaxNH | March 26, 2008 3:47 PM

Chelsea is almost 30 years old. She is not a child. She is campaigning and should have been prepared to answer this question. What Bill Clinton did in the oval office with Monica Lewinsky is everybody's business. He was our president and committed these assignations on our dollar in our white house....not to mention only doors away from his wife and daughter. He created this as his legacy and indeed continues to meddle in now what will be his wife's legacy. Hillary's judgement is definitely off. Why is she allowing this man to actively campaign for her? Why hasn't anyone asked her too denounce him?

Posted by: Gwen | March 26, 2008 3:48 PM

No it is not fair. I think she showed a lot of class in her answer.

Posted by: Betty | March 26, 2008 3:49 PM

""Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, Sen. Clinton will be deposed as a material witness in preparation for a trial scheduled to begin March 27, 2007.""

Ahhh, March 27th. Please hurry with this trial and get us out of this Clinton misery once and for all.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:50 PM

hillary's running on her experience from being in the whitehouse as first lady. why not ask her about things that happend in the whitehouse when she was there? she says she was involved in everything that happened there... everything i guess except nafta and intern development programs.

Posted by: mikey r. | March 26, 2008 3:50 PM

Yes, it's fair because you are more likely to get a less scripted honest answer out of Chlesea than you are her parents.

Posted by: Dominic | March 26, 2008 3:51 PM

Yes, it's fair because you are more likely to get a less scripted honest answer out of Chlesea than you are her parents.

Posted by: Dominic | March 26, 2008 3:51 PM

what resposne was he trying to elicit? what would have made him happy? In this instance chels is a child who should have been left behind!

Posted by: harvey halperin | March 26, 2008 3:51 PM

Considering Bill just gone done saying that pretty much when you are in politics everything is fair for you and your surrogates; and if you can't take it, get out of the game; so yes it's fair. This just another example of where they want to set the rules for how everyone else should play, but then it should change for them.

Posted by: Chris | March 26, 2008 3:51 PM

No it is not fair. I think she showed a lot of class in her answer.

Posted by: Betty | March 26, 2008 3:51 PM

So....... waterboarding is ok by the sick one ....
......
Not my {("Kind")}of America.

Posted by: Not with you &**^#!es | March 26, 2008 3:52 PM

Thank you, mandm. The MSM has morphed into ET, and the presidential candidates treated more like Britney Spears et. al. than a potential leader of this country. The behavior of the press has been extremely disturbing this election cycle. What should have been a minor, one line story has been turned into a major, votable event. We barely hear about the significant and critical problems such as the civil war in Basra, the ice sheet falling into the ocean, and the hushed up story of the economy. The state of journalism in this country has sunk to an all time low.

Posted by: ellen | March 26, 2008 3:52 PM

I absolutely think it was a fair question and while I realize Chelsea's initial reaction might be one of indignation, she missed a golden opportunity to point out why her mother's credibility wasn't affected. (although of course it was - Hillary and Bill are total tools!)

If the Clintons can't stand the hot water, they all need to get out of the kitchen sink!

Posted by: Maril | March 26, 2008 3:53 PM

Yes, Chelsea should be subject to press interviews in the same way as any other surrogate or candidate. She's made herself a public figure. Thus the effort to shield her is disingenuous (as usual with the Clinton's).
No, Monica-gate is not fair game for Chelsea.
No, Monica-gate should not be brought up with Senator Clinton, although it would be fair game. It's not a wise move to bring it up.

Posted by: Phil Douglas | March 26, 2008 3:53 PM

Any and all questions are permissible. Some may not be relative but should be answered truthfully. Chelsea is not a child; she is an adult and should act like one. The Obama children are underage and are not campaigning for their father so should not be asked any questions. If they were of age and campaigning for their father then nothing should be out of bounds.

Posted by: Lani | March 26, 2008 3:53 PM

I would first like to state that as a student of Butler University, I am ashamed that this had to take place on our campus.

I am not a Hilary supporter, but I think it is a classless, attention seeking stunt to ask a question like that. It is irrelevant that she is campaigning because it is STILL an innappropriate question from one human being to another.

to respond to a comment

I think the fact that A) she was surprised by the question and B) that Monica questions never showed up prior to this - indicates to us how staged these events really are.

Posted by: jp | March 26, 2008 12:48 PM

nothing about this was staged, it was an open forum inside our campus starbucks that wasn't even solidified until last week.

again, the Butler community is embarrassed that this had to happen on our campus, that should say something about the "validity" of the question.

Posted by: BUchc | March 26, 2008 3:53 PM

You cannot be on the campaign trail, making speeches and not expect to answer questions. Chelsea wants it both ways, which is a traditional Clinton trait, so she is following in the footsteps of her parents.

Posted by: R Kane | March 26, 2008 3:54 PM

It is absolutely fair as she has taken the role of politicing for her mother. I think her response was inconsiderate, poorly thought out and rude given her role. It was asked nicely and she should have given a thoughtful if not brief response. The Clinton's appear to see themselves as royalty and take offense.

I would add that it would also be appropriate to ask her for her thoughts of her mother's "misspeaking" of the visit to Bosnia with her mother when they were "fired upon" on the tarmac.

Posted by: Jim - Texas | March 26, 2008 3:54 PM

I agree with some of the comments here already. It should be fair game, given that she is campaigning on behalf of her mother. However, it is indeed poor form. I fail to see how Chelsea could have an objective opinion about the Lewinsky ordeal or even how it would be relevant. How would a husband's infidelity impact a wife's credibility? Did Hillary lie about the scandal and get caught?, or something? If she did, I don't remember it. I remember her being a victim and actually keeping a cur any other woman would have kicked to the curb if he hadn't been president. Whether she kept him for the right reasons or to not damage her own career is a better question but also rude to ask of the daughter caught in the middle.

Posted by: engineerGA | March 26, 2008 3:54 PM

bebe, read my posts, it'll make perfect sense. To put it differently, if she had left him and protected herself and her daughter from him at the first humiliation, I would vote for her over Obama. But she is openly running on Bill's career accomplishments...which brings me to Simple. Simple, Bill didn't pay anything with his impeachment. The Democratic party and the world paid the price for Bill's impeachment.

Gore would have won handily if not for Bill's lies (it was the lies not the sex for the rest of you forgetful types saying his sex life is no business of ours). Bill's lies are something Hillary owns now, along with the rest of the damage Bush and his friends have done.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 26, 2008 3:54 PM

-Was is a good question? No.
-Was it a relevant question? No.
-Was it a polite questions. No.
-Was the question aimed at being malitious? Probably.
-Was it a fair question? Sure. Anything is fair if you hop up on a stage and ask for questions.
-Was it fair for her to shut the question down as opposed to answering it? Absolutely. For the same reason that it was fair to ask it. Chelsea is impressive and it speaks well of the mother who raised her.

Posted by: J M | March 26, 2008 3:54 PM

Absolutely, Chelsey is campaigning for Hillary. She is subject to questioning as is her mother. I would ask Chesey to take to heart this quote, " If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen". She is a part of Bill's legacy and as such is fair game.

Posted by: Buddy | March 26, 2008 3:55 PM

It was absolutely inappropriate to ask Chelsea about her parent's problems. She should be asked though if she has the same recollection as her mother about her experience in Bosnia.

Posted by: Charles D | March 26, 2008 3:55 PM

Of course it's fair game to ask Chelsea that question. It was an honest question from a hillary supporter and if that's how they deal with their supporters I don't exactly want to find out how they will treat the rest of us.

Posted by: Charles Kushner | March 26, 2008 3:56 PM

The question was legitimate and Chelsea could have chosen to decline to comment rather than saying it was none of his business. People will make choices about the candidates based on information and opinion. She basically dismissed his question as she has dismissed all questions from reporters. As an adult campaigning for her mother she should be prepared to answer all questions nondefensively or stay home.

Posted by: Dorothy | March 26, 2008 3:57 PM

Obama's hackysack groupies would taunt Chelsea Clinton. They don't have kids or mortgages and they never served a day doing anything for the country.

Almost funny if it wasnt so tragic.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 26, 2008 3:57 PM

Of course it's fair game. Chelsea is an adult who would have knowledge about this issue. How many politicians have had their career destroyed by sex acts? She should not be campaigning for someone that she can't support.
Her answer was poor and makes her a less important supporter. Basically she wants us to support someone without answering inquiries. I think she should find a new job.

Posted by: tactless | March 26, 2008 3:59 PM

I think Ms. Clinton has every right not to talk about anything that makes her uncomfortable; after all she's not the one running for anything. However, she has put herself (or has been placed) in a position where people will inevitably ask irrelevant/ignorant questions, and I feel that she could've answered a little better. She could've said "It's none of your business" in a much more diplomatic, mature way. She can be excused because she is young and obviously inexperienced, but precisely because of that, perhaps she and her parents should think twice before sending her out to campaign, exposing her to such tribulations.

Posted by: K | March 26, 2008 3:59 PM

We all know that one day Chelsea will run for President. They're grooming her for it now. That's all this is about.

Posted by: Jerry | March 26, 2008 3:59 PM

While the question was distastful, it is an appropriate question.

My bet is that if Hillary wins, Bill will be caught with his new Monica by July, 2009.

Will Hillary still be able to rule the nation? Will we be subjected to 12 months of the prime time Bill and Hillary divorce show?

How will she retain the respect of other world leaders?

Posted by: Art V. | March 26, 2008 3:59 PM

It's in poor form, no doubt about it. Hillary Clinton does not control her husband, so it's no more "fair game" than to ask Sidney McCain about John and Carol's divorce. It's irrelevant to any of the platforms, both left and right.

If there's nothing left beyond personal jabs (and in this case, bottom-feeding personal jabs), then it only fares well for the candidate in question, to me.

Posted by: Max | March 26, 2008 4:00 PM

Yes. Perfectly legitimate. A crude question but legitimate. Everyone on the campaign trail is fair game for questions. Obama's kids are not campaigning so they are not, as some have suggested. Let's compare apples to apples shall we.

Posted by: Alan B. | March 26, 2008 4:00 PM

If any of you are parents, how could you say that this question is legitimate??? How does a child account for an incident that had nothing to do with her? Yes, she is all grown up now but does it hurt her any less?
Some of have lost your humanity

Posted by: HL | March 26, 2008 4:01 PM

The real point is to ask Hillary "If she were President and she knowingly lied to the American People should she resign?

Posted by: JJ | March 26, 2008 4:01 PM

Of course is fair game. What's going to happen with Hillary in the oval office and Bill doing who knows what in the vestibule?

One of the problems the Clintons have is that many of us who like and have supported them in the past are just getting sick of the circus that surrounds them.

I think the country has had more than it's share of Bush's and Clinton's. Time for a change.

Posted by: John L. | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM

It is probably not fair to ask this sort of question to Chelsea Clinton. However, if she decides to campaign for her mother, show up in places as her mother's surrogate, then she should be able to answer questions no matter how awful they might sound.

Posted by: Biddut Miah | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM

Evan Strange (real name?) won't be working for me or any of my colleagues. His adolescent need to be noticed would retard our company's progressive need to achieve. Good luck on your new career of job hunting.

Posted by: Pete | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM

Of course it is a fair question. C'mon Hillary supporters, you can't have it both ways. If Bill is going to plaster his face all over Hillary's campaign than the reason why he was impeached is absolutely in-bounds.

Posted by: Chris | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM

How old was Chelsea when the Lewinsky thing went on? I don't see that as a relevant question. I do like the response she gave though.

Posted by: AJ's Mom | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM

Where are the questions to Obama or his wife about his judgement and credibility in his neglecting to leave a church in which vile hate-filled and anti American sentiments are preached. Now that question would shed some light on a candidate's credibility for the position of President of the United States! Double standard!

Posted by: Katni | March 26, 2008 4:04 PM

She should have had that YES ready. She's 28 and very aware of the politics involved. Maybe she hasn't had many examples of honesty.

Posted by: Pat | March 26, 2008 4:04 PM

She should have had that YES ready. She's 28 and very aware of the politics involved. Maybe she hasn't had many examples of honesty.

Posted by: Pat | March 26, 2008 4:04 PM

Shes campaining for her mother. Not only is it fair its totally relevant. Chelsea made a big cowardly mistake by refusing to answer the question. She also displayed the same superiority complex as her mother by saying its none of your business.

Posted by: Robert | March 26, 2008 4:05 PM

As far asking Chelsea the question and how insensitive it was, BLAME HILLARY AND BILL. How can it possibly be anyone else's fault that they've sent their kid into the meat-grinder in order to further their own agendas?

Posted by: Chris | March 26, 2008 4:05 PM

I'm a parent, and if I send one of my grown kids out to campaign for me, then yes all questions are legitimate. Why should she get a "free shot" to spew her mother's campaign rhetoric, without rebuttal. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen

Posted by: Thomas | March 26, 2008 4:05 PM

It's a perfectly fair and relevant question. It's fair to use Hillary's response to her husband's repeated infidelity to contribute to an assessent of her character. How can Hillary attempt to stand on the high ground and criticize Obama for not leaving his pastor when she stood by her husband in much deeper muck?
Of course it's rude to ask Chelsea about her dad's infidelity and her mom's reaction to it. But if she decides to work for the campaign, then she's going to hear those questions. If she doesn't want to hear it, leave the campaign.

Posted by: Geo | March 26, 2008 4:05 PM

The young man exhibited very poor taste in asking such a question.

Posted by: RH | March 26, 2008 4:06 PM

No I didn't think it was fair at all!

Posted by: Ginny | March 26, 2008 4:07 PM

No I didn't think it was fair at all!

Posted by: Ginny | March 26, 2008 4:07 PM

Let them ask.She gave a great answer

Posted by: marie | March 26, 2008 4:08 PM

ANY QUESTION IS FAIR. You should be able to answer any question if you going to represent the people, spend their money and regulate their lives. And that goes for the people who represent you. If you don't want to answer that question, then say it.

Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2008 4:08 PM

Good answer Chelsea, not an appropiate question.

Posted by: Toni | March 26, 2008 4:08 PM

Hillary and her camp is trying to divert attention from her sniper-fire Bosnian trip.

She is a liar.
No liars for president.
No crooks for president.
No more pity votes.
No more sympathy votes.
Release your tax return.
Let us see your land dealings.
Let us see your sources of income.
Let us see who you paid to murder Vince Forster.

Posted by: David | March 26, 2008 4:08 PM

This quesstion was intended to make Chelsea
uncomfortable. It was inappropriate and rude.
If this question were directed at Hillary I would hope her response would be similar to her daughter's--"That's a personal question that I would prefer not addressing".

Posted by: David J. Fredrick | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

This quesstion was intended to make Chelsea
uncomfortable. It was inappropriate and rude.
If this question were directed at Hillary I would hope her response would be similar to her daughter's--"That's a personal question that I would prefer not addressing".

Posted by: David J. Fredrick | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

Come on America!!!!
If you are going to ask you children to represent you within the process of you're personal career gains, then you must accept the accountability that comes with that decision.
For you that have stated NO, you are in denial if you can not understand that handling a marriage and standing up for what you believe is correct behavior (divorce the SOB) is a decision that represents what kind of a person you really are!!!!
It is obvious that she placed her political career before what is correct action within a relationship. If she would have stood up to the SOB and taken the correct action, her daughter would have never been asked the question. Seems to me, the question showed the reality of the situation. Politics first, family second!!!!!
Shame on the MOM!!!!!

Posted by: james | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

HL, hhkeller, of really?

I am a 52 yo psychiatrist with kids and I have never cheated on my wife and one of the numerous reasons for that is that you just don't do that to your kids.

You don't urinate in your own well and you do not betray the source of love in your life.

People with little kids who cheat on their spouses are damaging their kids. Sorry, but they are damaging their kids. If Bill and Hillary got up and said that what they did (Hillary was aware of what was going on and supported the cover up) was a terrible thing for their child, the party and the country to have to endure...only then would the political redemption of this couple be possible.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

The obama groupies are such a loving group. They sound like Obamas church.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 26, 2008 4:10 PM

That's why it will be so great to have a woman in the White House so we won't have to worry about the Bills, the Eliots, the Kwames, the Davids, Toms, Dicks ,Harrys that can't keep it zipped. Move over guys.

Posted by: deor | March 26, 2008 4:10 PM

Come on America!!!!
If you are going to ask your children to represent you within the process of you're personal career gains, then you must accept the accountability that comes with that decision.
For you that have stated NO, you are in denial if you can not understand that handling a marriage and standing up for what you believe is correct behavior (divorce the SOB) is a decision that represents what kind of a person you really are!!!!
It is obvious that she placed her political career before what is correct action within a relationship. If she would have stood up to the SOB and taken the correct action, her daughter would have never been asked the question. Seems to me, the question showed the reality of the situation. Politics first, family second!!!!!
Shame on the MOM!!!!!

Posted by: James | March 26, 2008 4:10 PM

"None of your business"

Another reminder to us of how rude, crude, selfish and arrogant this family is.

Also, Chelsea's response seemed too smooth and practiced - oh well, another clinton staged event!

Underlying fact is that they don't give a damn about the people. Every word, every action is for the benefit of clinton and clinton alone.

The salient point is not so much of the head Bill was expecting to get all that time he was in oval office .. even while talking to senators & congressmen!, it is - hrc's reason behind her manipulation of her hubby's activities and what it tells us about her calculating, ruthless, crooked & ambitious mind.

Was the queen unaware of what was going on? After all, this was probably the 100th time the hubby was going after another 'head'.

When one has observed the ongoing vicious attacks on her opponent one can't believe she stuck with the hubby for love (even if she thought she will get half of the big white house in case of a divorce :)

No, she kept-up the pretend show for a reason that was devoid of any emotion. She kept the marriage intact because she still had a use for the hubby.. she wanted the whole white house, later on, as soon as she could.

Oh...the disgusting lust for power!

The single most important criteria for a future democratic leader is whether s/he is evil. It is not whether she is white or black. It is not whether s/he is man or woman (Ferraro, what kind of hatred was going on in you mind? or was it just some kind of blackmail), and not whether young or old. It is not so much whether she knows the name of Russia's leader (who, in response to a typical rude hillary-dirt on him, described her as a aspiring head of state without a head.. So much for her tactless, rude command over foreign affairs!).

The single most important criteria is whether she is EVIL or not.

All of her campaign strategy & tactics point unwaiveringly -> "bottomless persistent absolute EVIL pursued with a maniacal and horrifying single mindedness"

That and those ethereal, vast right (& left) wing conspiracies, temper tantrums, tears dramas, staged events & paid ghost-men and the clinton challenge "is there anyone else who wants to learn ironing?" (as if the queen will recognize an iron if she sees one), treating people like throwaway napkins (Mr. Richardson, and thousand others), constant mud slinging & dirt digging that will put a pig to shame, zero regard for the party... "what party? .. there is only one queen and she has ambitions.. the queen has decided that she wants the power, she wants her rightful throne and also needs to accumulate more millions .. so don't ever mention the party again, or else ...".

Once elected, how can this $100 million deceitful couple have a penny's worth of care for a single-parent woman who is desperately trying to raise her little baby on minimum wage? or a 65 year old widow with no money to buy medicine and no one to care for her? or a hardworking honest family man with a wife & two lovely kids but no job? You want me to trust this 'absolute evil incarnate' to remember me after I vote?

Even after hrc's own people gave her a less than 10% chance of winning, why does she still continue to mercilessly tear apart her opponent?

Why the mud slinging and dirt digging with total disregard for the party and the future of the party.

The answer is - the queen wants the power.

If she can't get it she will make sure that everybody else is massacred including Obama, the party and the people. She will keep on throwing the dirt and assassin the character.

Her plan is to let McCain win this electon - thanks to all of hillary-dirt. She is already planning for her election four years from now. She thinks 2012 will be the queen time.

Obama is too decent a fellow to respond to this hillary-dirt policy in kind.

But we the people, yes, we, the same people who are insulted by clintons at every step with Lies & variations on "it's none of your business" can respond in kind.

Yes, we will respond in kind this year as well as after four years.

clintons, don't mess with the 'little' people for we will mess back. We are finally aware of your tricks.

Posted by: respond | March 26, 2008 4:10 PM

ABSOLUTELY FAIR AND I'M STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER...OBVIOUSLY CREDIBILITY IS SHOT SINCE SHE COULDN"T ANSWER...APPLE DOESN"T FALL FAR FROM TREE, SHE SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED IT PROFESSIONALLY, NOW ALL CLINTONS HAVE NO CREDIBILITY! WELCOME TO POLITICS CHELSEA, LEARN TO FACE MUSIC!! I'M NOW VOTING FOR OBAMA

Posted by: toughenup! | March 26, 2008 4:10 PM

Of course its fair. She is representing her Mother. But lets be honest, the Clinton marriage has not been one of love for a very long time. It is a political marriage. My guess is that they still sleep in separate bedrooms.

Posted by: fishcatlady | March 26, 2008 4:11 PM

Yes, its fair to ask Chelsea about Lewinsky. If Chelsea cannot handle a fire then get out of the kitchen. She should not campaign for a presidential candidate, if she cannot answer questions. I guess she get used to free ride as a first daughter, but there is no free ride in the real world.

Posted by: Natalie | March 26, 2008 4:11 PM

I don't know whether the question was meant to elicit a reaction from Chelsea or was asked out of genuine curiosity. What is important is that Chelsea has offered herself up as a Clinton surrogate; as such she may be asked the occasional "hard question". Granted, I wish Hillary had been there to answer the question for herself, but she wasn't. What makes this a valid question to me is that during Monicagate, Hillary was quick to discount the words of other people and put the blame on a "vast right wing conspiracy". She would gladly have branded an "innocent" person telling the truth as a liar then have her husband admit that he had lied. Bill was a blue-dress away from getting off scott free. The Clintons have proven time and time again they have a fundamental lack of honesty.

Posted by: RollOver | March 26, 2008 4:12 PM

it really isn't a matter of if it's fair or not. the question was asked for the very purpose of getting hilary and obama supporters to once again come out fighting with each other over nonsense. where is the collective democrat anger over the past 8 years? everyone should read how stupid these responses are. Candidates and cheerleaders on both sides. Grow the hell up! Otherwise we'll continue more of the same.

Posted by: dr. j. | March 26, 2008 4:12 PM

It was not a question it was an attack on an innocent person.

NO ONE should be asked about personal relationships within their family.

Bill Clinton's crime was that he lied under oath. This continuing fixation over an eight year old sex act by a society that wallows in sex is disgusting.

Posted by: History Teacher | March 26, 2008 4:13 PM

Hillary is New Coke. And just like that product when people realize the difference she'll be retired. Simply I do not want the wife, son, or husband of a former president to be president. Hillary has said nothing compelling during the campaign and didn't read the documents explaining the case for war in Iraq. Hillary initially based Bill's woes on the vast right wing conspiracy. Therefore the question was about her credibility in regard to her reaction to the truth. Chelsea needs to get a life of her own. Does she really believe that she'd be working for a hedge fund if her name were Smith?

Beltway Greg

Posted by: Beltway Greg | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM

Not only was it unfair, it was stupid. What did he expect her to say? Yes?

I expect the questioner was trying to be offensive. He got what he deserved.

Posted by: John B | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM

Shrink2? Having read your post, I have a question -- why lie and pretend to be a psychiatrist?? Knock it off!!! Tell the truth about yourself!!

Posted by: ReallyAPsychologist | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM

No, but as the defensive linebacker says to the sacked quarterback, "It's all game baby!"

She's going to get those questions and inevitably, she has to respond to the questions. Though she was understandably warranted in saying it's none of our business, she could have soften the tone a bit. First that kid reporter she dissed and now this?! Come on. Chill out.

Posted by: Gerald Shields | March 26, 2008 4:15 PM

If she can't stand the heat, then she shouldn't be on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2008 4:15 PM

Rather sad question. Such a question, as any Dad and Mom should know, is bound to be asked of the offspring of theirs when self centered pants ot panties indiscriminately drop.
The only question Mom needs to answer is why the Lewinski affair did not end in a divorce. Did the cuckolded Mom have other plans that precluded such legal action and how does Mom dare to subject her daughter to such probable indignities? What's the matter with that Clinton Clan? Have they no class or sensibilities at all?

Posted by: Roger vanFrank | March 26, 2008 4:15 PM

Yes she's like her mom, can't answer the tough questions. Did it hurt her credibility?
Not even a tough question. It was actually a set up for a great answer...unfortunately for her and Hillary she didn't have one.

Posted by: Mike | March 26, 2008 4:16 PM

"Where are the questions to Obama or his wife about his judgement and credibility in his neglecting to leave a church in which vile hate-filled and anti American sentiments are preached."

Hint: most of Obama's supporters are educated, which means their pastors don't speak for them. Which means they understand the concept of being friends or acquaintances with someone you might not always agree with. Which means they understand that America has serious problems that while perhaps not consistent with Wright's claims, are very much a source of outrage for many people.

In other words, smart people aren't caught up in the Rev. Wright fiasco.

Posted by: Chris | March 26, 2008 4:17 PM

McCain will win this election. Suburban democrats dont like the tone of Obamas Church and they have kids to protect.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM

What I resent is the fact that Chelsea wants to campaign for her parents but won't grant any interviews. That is having it both ways. If you are putting yourself out as a political, public figure, then you should submit to being interviewed.

For instance, I'd like to know how she got that hedge fund job on Wall St? Did mommy and daddy help you get that job? Why didn't you look for a job in the public sector instead of a job that is all about making money and creating economic winners and losers in this economy that your phony mom purports to care so much about?

Chelsea is a phony like her mom as she exhorts to her idiot savant student supporters how much her mom cares about them while she is working as a rapacious hedge fund manager on Wall St.

Meet the Clintons. They are just your average modern family of transparent phonies.

Posted by: Jeff Owen | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM

The question was fair because if Hillary gets elected, all we'll hear about at news/dinner time every night is what kind of sexual antics Bill Clinton is up to this time. I would hate to see four more years of that; that was truly a disgusting time in our history. Very sickening.

Plus, if she had any self-esteem or dignity at all, she would have divorced him. But she wanted to remain first lady and run for office herself. Women should stand up for their rights and he was definitely abusing her and their marriage. She should have divorced him. I have had no respect for her since that time.

Posted by: Becky Hodge, Oak Ridge, TN | March 26, 2008 4:19 PM

I totally agree with those who note that Chelsea Clinton has chosen on her own to jump head first into the political arena. She is on the campaign trail, traveling the country stumping for her Mother, therefore; she should be prepared to answer any pertinent question that could befall any other Clinton surrogate.

While they may hate to admit it, the Monica Lewinsky scandal is a legitimate part of the Clinton presidential legacy and it's something that they all should be prepared to deal with.

I personally think that she missed a prime opportunity to answer that question as an adult, rather than a brat, by noting how dealing with that unfortunate and very personal issue made not only her family, but specifically her Mother stronger and how she was able to deal with it with class and dignity. Instead Chelsea opted to deal with the question as the child that everyone continues to see her as.

Chelsea had better toughen up and quick because if they get their wish and the Clintons go up against the Republicans, this Primary would be a walk in the park compared to what she stands to be up against and what kind of questions and comments she may be subject to on the actual election campaign trail.

My suggestion...if you can't stand the heat, get your a$$ out the kitchen!

Posted by: Dee | March 26, 2008 4:20 PM

Sounds like you are looking for something to twist words with. What does it have to do with Chelsea. That is a %$#@ cheap shot.

Posted by: Matthew Follmer | March 26, 2008 4:20 PM

Sounds like you are looking for something to twist words with. What does it have to do with Chelsea? That is a %$#@ cheap shot.

Posted by: Matthew Follmer | March 26, 2008 4:20 PM

Board certified and in practice for over 20 years. And my father was a psychiatrist and my mother is still a practicing clinical psychologist.

Was there something I said that made you think I was a sockpuppet?

Or how about this, which is not a good treatment for akathisia, thrihexphenidyl, cyproheptadine, lorazepam or inderal?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM

Senator Clinton has repeatedly asserted that she played a key and constant role in her husband's administrations. Nonetheless, I'm guessing that the Lewinsky affair was simply a ménage à deux (the mind reels at the alternative), and am inclined to give the Senator credit for her rather desperate attempts to defend her husband post hoc. Why the question posed (or Chelsea Clinton's response to it) is of any relevance to the Senator's campaign is beyond me. So, too, is the media's unfortunate determination to report this incident.

One of many better questions to Ms. Clinton might have been: "Given the active role your mother played in the Clinton administrations, does she now regret the decision to pardon Marc Rich?"

Posted by: DLB | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM

Absolutely not.

Posted by: voter | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM

yes it is fair, specially if the question is coming from an equal: a young person or a student who is practicing to be a journalist, Miss Clinton answer was aggresive demeaning and stupid, she is not a toddler or a 7 years old, If she is in the campaign she should be prepared with answers. Yes we all know she is the product of a public well disfunctional family, but who is not, Her mother has made choices in behalf of the pursue for money and power, instead of dignity and value. Senator Clinton is not a progressive woman of the century 21, she belong to the old school, were wifes are tolerant of any type of abuse inluding unfaithfullnes, ridicule and emptional abuse. I finished medical school at age 21 in an underdeveolped country and at age 22 I was in charge of an emergency room. Chelesea is a little too old and her answer belongs to a person of 17 years old.

We want a woman president, but a woman of substance, a woman who has values, and self-respect and dignity, a good role model for ours daughter, a woman we can trust the matriarchy of our american society, someone who has a strong foundation, and Chelsea is the example a rotten apple from Mrs. Clinton foundation.

Posted by: alma ludivina | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM

Get her...If the press can drive celebrities insane to the point of being locked away or worse, than Chelsea is going to have to understand that it was our business when Bill and Hill were asked the same question, if she is going to campaign. Every nay sayer responding to this article can't say they turned off the television every time the two of them have been asked that question. If Evan Strange asked that question at the dinner table, it would have been rude. On the campaign trail, however, is a completely different ballgame. If the Clintons want the spot light (including Chelsea), they better take it. Point--It is totally EVERYONE's business.

Posted by: nolan | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM

It's a very reasonable question. Hillary claimed that the affair was a "right wing conspiracy," among other statements. Given Bill Clinton's known adulterous history, it was certainly a stonewall kind of response. It is a legitimate concern about a future President...would that person be prone to stonewall or make unfounded allegations whenever a crisis arises?

Posted by: Dee | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM

Of course it's fair to ask her about that period in her mother's life -- and yes, it is our business. If she can't take the heat, then she needs to go home and not be out there campaigning.

Posted by: sh | March 26, 2008 4:23 PM

Another good question for Chelsea:
Does your mother lie a lot at home too?
She should be able to answer questions like this...it will help her grow up.

Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 4:23 PM

"Yes. It hurt then. It hurts now." Had Chelsea answered honestly and openly, she would have gained votes and avoided drawn-out controversy. Instead, she causes more of the time-worn Clinton Circus behavior. I feel bad for her, worse that she is caught up in a Clinton campaign that has a general aversion to speaking obvious truths.

Posted by: Jules | March 26, 2008 4:25 PM

I think it was a valid question, but perhaps may better have been asked of Hillary herself. If her mother is going to put her out there and pimp her out. Then no question is off the table. Given that the student didnt have access to Hillary, but instead to Chelsea.....well, I dont blame him for asking. Hillary's demeanor in light of the scandal says a lot about her character. I just feel sorry for Chelsea to have someone like Hillary as her mother.

Posted by: Amanda | March 26, 2008 4:25 PM

shrink2 sounds nutty.
should stick to your meds.
and Stop abusing your patients

Posted by: hhkeller | March 26, 2008 4:26 PM

ALMA LUDIVINA SAID IT BEST.

NICE AND CONGRATS.

Posted by: nolan | March 26, 2008 4:26 PM

Rather sad question. Such a question, as any Dad and Mom should know, is bound to be asked of the offspring of theirs when self centered pants ot panties indiscriminately drop.
The only question Mom needs to answer is why the Lewinski affair did not end in a divorce. Did the cuckolded Mom have other plans that precluded such legal action and how does Mom dare to subject her daughter to such probable indignities? What's the matter with that Clinton Clan? Have they no class or sensibilities at all?

Posted by: Roger vanFrank | March 26, 2008 4:27 PM

The questions was is it "fair?" Sure, all questions are fair in politics I guess. Is it tactful? No. Is it crude? Yes. But it is what I would consider "fair." Does anyone really think that Chelsea would say her mother's credibility has been damaged (for any reason). No. So why ask the question in the first place?

Posted by: Shellito1012 | March 26, 2008 4:27 PM

While I have great disdain for the journalistic moron who thrusts a microphone under the nose of someone who just learned that their entire family has been killed asking: "How do you fell?"

Chelsea Clinton has been permitted to grow up in the same political fishbowl as her parents swam for all of her teenage years. She was considered off limits and I agree that was fair.

Little Chelsea is all grown up and is (arguably) smarter than the average bear and she has volunteered to walk with abandon through the minefield that is the presidential campaign trail praising her mother's capacity to be the 44th president.

Chelsea is fair game for any question anyone chooses to ask her. But she has no obligation to give an answer.

When she wants to stop representing her mother's run for the top job she will drift back to the safety of obscurity.

Posted by: Getting real. | March 26, 2008 4:28 PM

Yes it was fair to ask her that question. The question wasn't about what her father did -- it was about her mother - who is running for president. If Hillary lied, then we have a right to know. Chelsea chooses to be in public; she tells us that she has something useful to say; she is not a baby any longer -- if she wants to campaign for her mother, then she needs to be able to respond to every question that she's asked and not to sound like a snotty little child.

Posted by: jr | March 26, 2008 4:28 PM

Perhaps Chelsea should be questioned on "ducking their heads and running for cover". She was right along side her mother during that harrowing ordeal.
I agree with Dee5...If she is campaigning for Hillary then she must be prepared to answer questions regarding her mothers credibility.

Posted by: nick | March 26, 2008 4:28 PM

Yesterday Hillary Clinton said that if her pastor made the same remarks that Obama's pastor made she would leave the church. That clearly is a statement which calls into question the judgement of Obama who chose to stay for some twenty years in the church. Question: Does not Hillary's choice to stay in a marriage with a man who abuses relationships with other women and takes advantage of a female intern call into question her judgement. As she also said yesterday, you can't choose your family but you can choose your pastor, the same holds true that you can't choose your family but you certainly can choose your husband.

Posted by: Roger | March 26, 2008 4:29 PM

If a fairness doctrine applies, it does so with ironic parallelism. In politics fairness may be best seen as a moving target.., that which gets the job done is justifiable, if not fair. When reciprocated it's no longer fair. A more interesting review context might be common sense, which would suggest the absurd irrelevancy of asking this young woman such a question. Reason might suggest the only purpose for doing so would be personal embarassment, at the hands of an immature, young, person. This of course leads to the question of what motivated news crews (adults and professionals) to headline with the footage at all, they had a choice ("YouTube" is not the same and doesn't conform to your journalist ethics, so don't try guys). But, they did get their jobs done. Love and War?

Posted by: pointwithaview | March 26, 2008 4:29 PM

Perhaps Chelsea should be questioned on "ducking their heads and running for cover". She was right along side her mother during that harrowing ordeal.
I agree with Dee5...If she is campaigning for Hillary then she must be prepared to answer questions regarding her mothers credibility.

Posted by: nick | March 26, 2008 4:29 PM

I totally agree with those who note that Chelsea Clinton has chosen on her own to jump head first into the political arena. She is on the campaign trail, traveling the country stumping for her Mother, therefore; she should be prepared to answer any pertinent question that could befall any other Clinton surrogate.

While they may hate to admit it, the Monica Lewinsky scandal is a legitimate part of the Clinton presidential legacy and it's something that they all should be prepared to deal with.

I personally think that she missed a prime opportunity to answer that question as an adult, rather than a brat, by noting how dealing with that unfortunate and very personal issue made not only her family, but specifically her Mother stronger and how she was able to deal with it with class and dignity. Instead Chelsea opted to deal with the question as the child that everyone continues to see her as.

Chelsea had better toughen up and quick because if they get their wish and the Clintons go up against the Republicans, this Primary would be a walk in the park compared to what she stands to be up against and what kind of questions and comments she may be subject to on the actual election campaign trail.

My suggestion...if you can't stand the heat, get your butt out the kitchen!

Posted by: Dee | March 26, 2008 4:29 PM

Remember when people called Hillary a B***h? Well it sounds like she passed that onto the next generation - Chelsea sounded just like her mother - she's a b***h too. Of course she should have answered that question - or at least evaded it with humor, but her response was uncalled for.

Posted by: ab | March 26, 2008 4:31 PM

hhkeller,

What? Are you too sour about Hillary's campaign disaster to discover millions of Obama people are actually kind and gentle and love their spouses and their children more than the Clintons do?

Don't get me wrong, that pastor is nasty, but Obama is not his pastor and the Clintons, well they are...the Clintons.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 26, 2008 4:31 PM

I am appalled at the vitriol being directed at Chelsea here. Disagreements about Bill's presidency and character are one thing -- they aren't Chelsea's responsibility. But the question asked here about whether it was fair to ask Chelsea if Bill's affair spoke to Hillary's credibility.

Ask about Hillary's own words and actions speaking to her creditability, not someone else's. This guilt by association trip some people seem to be on is going to wind up biting them in the ass again. Remember when your association with someone who was suspected of holding un-American thoughts jeopardized your career? You want to go back to that crap?

Posted by: catalexis | March 26, 2008 4:32 PM

Not a great question, I agree...but such a response may be acceptable in the stuffy and box-like offices of McKinsey, but not in the playing field that is international politics

Posted by: Rodrigo Vaughn Jones | March 26, 2008 4:34 PM

No, it is not fair for Chelsea to be asked a question about Bill's abyss. But having accepted to campaign for her mother, Chelsea has also accepted to put herself in the firing line for her mother.

Posted by: Hans Khan | March 26, 2008 4:34 PM

AND SHRINK 2 SOUNDS LIKE HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, (JUST TO STIR THE POT)

Posted by: NOLAN | March 26, 2008 4:34 PM

Chelsea better get used to these questions. Chelsea is not just "Clinton's kid" she is a grown up woman and a "political aide" in the campaign for her mother. Any and all presedential questions are fair game. James Carville made that assumption and made that point 16 years ago and again last week. Chelsea should apologize to the young man who asked the question, she is a arrogant and ignorant as her mother.

Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 4:35 PM

Chelsea better get used to these questions. Chelsea is not just "Clinton's kid" she is a grown up woman and a "political aide" in the campaign for her mother. Any and all presedential questions are fair game. James Carville made that assumption and made that point 16 years ago and again last week. Chelsea should apologize to the young man who asked the question, she is a arrogant and ignorant as her mother.

Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 4:35 PM

Chelsea better get used to these questions. Chelsea is not just "Clinton's kid" she is a grown up woman and a "political aide" in the campaign for her mother. Any and all presedential questions are fair game. James Carville made that assumption and made that point 16 years ago and again last week. Chelsea should apologize to the young man who asked the question, she is a arrogant and ignorant as her mother.

Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 4:35 PM

Easy target though not the best phrasing of the question. Since aspects of other candidates personal lives seems to be fair game maybe Hillary should try to give a historic speech on sex the way Obama addresses race.

Good Luck Hillary!

Posted by: richard | March 26, 2008 4:36 PM

The question is not about the infidelity of Bill. It is not about the relationship between Hillary and Bill. As previously mentioned, Hillary stated that the whole Lewinsky story was a plot by the Republicans. We all know now that Bill lied to her and the rest of the country. She ended up looking like an idiot. It does raise the question: did her insistence that the Republicans were behind the story hurt her credibility? It also raises questions about how gullible is Hillary? How self deluding is Hillary not to know that Bill is such a horndog? Or did she know and intentionally try to mislead the American people by blaming the Republicans for the story? These are legitimate questions. It is legitimate and fair to ask these questions of Chelsea because she chose to campaign for her Hillary.

Posted by: DavidInCal | March 26, 2008 4:36 PM

comparing chelsea to obama's girls is ridiculous. first, their minors and chelsea is nearly 30, second they aren't campaigning for their dad as chelsea is for her mom. chelsea's an adult and is repping her mom to college people, essentially speaking for hilary, so questions about her mom's credibility are important for her to answer.

Posted by: diane | March 26, 2008 4:36 PM

Can someone tell me how surviving one of Bill Clinton's indiscretions affects her (Hillary's) credibility negatively? If anything it sheds a good light on her calm and rational thinking and good decision making. The question that whether Chelsea should be asked this question is, I am afraid, a stupid question. Chelsea is a grown up kid, and she is campaigning for her Mom, she can be asked all sorts of campaign related questions about Hillary.
Muhammad

Posted by: Muhammad Zafrullah | March 26, 2008 4:37 PM

Easy target though not the best phrasing of the question. Since aspects of other candidates personal lives seems to be fair game maybe Hillary can try to give a historic speech on sex the way Obama addresses race.

Good Luck Hillary!

Posted by: richard | March 26, 2008 4:37 PM

ggranny21:

Chelsea is an adult and is voluntarily campaigning for her mother. She's taking responsibility for her, so yes, it's fair that people ask her about anything involving her mother. Barack Obama's children are under 18 and therefore still spoken for by their parents, so, no, they are not fair game.

Posted by: Mer | March 26, 2008 4:40 PM


People who worry about others having sex are weirdo.

Shrink2 types abuse patients while they are under sedation.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 26, 2008 4:40 PM

I concur with the readers who correctly note that Chelsea is, in fact, a grown woman who has freely chosen to campaign for another grown woman--a grown woman who claims (rightly or wrongly) 8 years of stateswoman-like experience when she was the first lady. If she claims this time of her life was leadership experience, it is entirely fair to ask why she did not look like a leader during that time.

I also wonder why Chelsea didn't use that as an opportunity to support her candidate, by at least suggesting that Hillary had some backbone then, even if you couldn't see it.

Posted by: RTW | March 26, 2008 4:45 PM

Questions like this, which have no chance whatsoever of yielding useful information, are a waste of time for everyone. I'd like to see them stop. Normally, they are designed solely so that some reporter can write some copy around the answer ... basically pretending that the answer is useful. However, given that she is out on the campaign trail suggesting that her opinion on all manner of things is both useful and everybody's business, I think her answer that her opinion on this very public matter is none of anyone's business was a fairly unimpressive way to dodge the question.

Posted by: BH | March 26, 2008 4:45 PM

I'd like to know why Ms. Chelsea ia working as a hedge fund manager on Wall St. and whether her parents helped her get that job. Yes, Hillary cares about the working people as her daughter gets avictory lap job on Wall St. as a hedge fund manager.

When are people going to wake up and say, I am sick and tired of this phony, transparent political family and we want someone else. No more political dynasties.

Hey, Chelsea, can you spare a dime? Who's paying back your student loans from Stanford?

Posted by: Jeff Owen | March 26, 2008 4:46 PM

Oh no. Uh oh...

It appears we have stumbled upon a scientologist who also happens to support the Clintons...watch for an anti-psychiatry screed any time now.

Odd though that all I was trying to say is that love and honesty matter in a lot of ways that are not immediately obvious.

Well, see ya later, I don't want to make poor Ms Keller's head explode. She's got her own demons, she doesn't need my help
;-}

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 4:49 PM

in the 50s, there was an amazing book titled "Voices of Neuroses" which detailed research on ways to diagnose severe mental/emotional disorders simply by listening to specific aspects of a person's voice. Bill Clinton could have been one of the subjects for the study; his voice reflects all sorts of pathologies. I was amazed though when I heard Chelsea---she has a lot of the same characteristics!!!

Posted by: syd | March 26, 2008 4:49 PM

Personal choice to stay with a husband whose public philandering embarrassed his family, the nation and gave his adversaries the rope to hang him.

Personal choice to belong to the same church, listen to a pastor who, at times gets controversial in making his points about societal immorality and injustices.

Posted by: Jack | March 26, 2008 4:49 PM

The question was about credibility! The question was about strength! You choose to live the public life, then you better prepare to take the hits that come along with it.

It is our business, Chelsea, it is your mother's credibility that is at stake here. Your answer should have been one that portrayed strength, understanding and forgiveness. Instead you chose to answer in the defensive and the canned response that your mother's advisers have given you. Another missed opportunity by the Clinton camp to address the character of a scorned woman, and how she would handle herself as president, but instead it was just another blunder!!!

Posted by: Joe Goebbels | March 26, 2008 4:49 PM

Way to go, Chelsea! Bill Clinton should've responded in exactly the same way when the Monica Lewensky rubbish was first brought up.

Posted by: Chuck | March 26, 2008 4:52 PM

It seems to me that the daughter of Hillary "Rambo" Clinton wants it both ways. No cameras, no questions from the press. If she wasn't so sheltered she would have known how to handle the question better. For the record I think the question was in poor taste.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | March 26, 2008 4:54 PM

Chelsea seems like a lovely young lady. And ordinarily I would say the question was in very poor form, not to mention crass. On the other hand, she is stumping for her mother, smack dab in the middle of the campaign, so I'm afraid it is fair. Yes. It goes to her mother's credibility. Both parents lie: Bill: "I did not have sex with that woman..." And Hillary had to run across the tarmac with her head down while snipers were shooting at her. Again, in Bill Clinton's words: "Give me a break!"

Posted by: Joan | March 26, 2008 4:55 PM

The question was stupid.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 26, 2008 4:56 PM

cab91 up there. You are right in saying that Hillary should not be made responsible for her husband's behavior. By the same token however, Obama shouldn't be made responsible for his pastors beliefs either. Yet you and many other Hillary supporters like you made so much noise about it. A double standard? Absolutely, as anything we expect from Hillary and her supporters.

Posted by: NotoHillary

i agreee wholly with the above and
bottom line: bad question, worse answer

Posted by: teopa | March 26, 2008 4:57 PM

I thought it was a cute story when Obama asked one of his girls if she'd like to go on stage with them after some event. He relates that his daughter replied "Oh, Daddy. You know that's not my thing." He respected her decision.

Posted by: Jack | March 26, 2008 4:57 PM

The question was tasteless and crass! Why would you ask her daughter this question, I believe it was asked to embarrass her and to start another controversy. Does the American public look at the issues? No, we're dragging up a past that's wasn't then, nor is it now, our business. This is a personal issue, not a political one.
Wake up people! This election is crucial.
Do you really believe that Bill Clinton is the only political figure that has strayed?
Come on! I know preachers that have strayed. Then it becomes a moral issue. However, I don't believe I have heard a Senator, Congressman, or a President noting who we should sleep with, nor should they. This was between a husband and wife, and should have stayed that way.

Noone was hurt by this except Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea. Does anyone have any idea how strong it took Hillary to stand in the public view and back her husband?
That takes a strong woman and maybe, a wise one. Either way, it's none of our business. I care how they run the country, not their personal life. They are not accountable to us except for the economy, health care, safety, laws, etc.
Bill Clinton did a good job, I believe Hillary will do just as well, if not better. I wonder how many of you, would have the guts to face the world like she did? We need someone experienced, someone who is strong or we will be run over. Don't give me speeches on morality, or things can change. Tell me how you are going to change it. I think Hillary does that, and I think she cares.

Posted by: M. Sparks | March 26, 2008 4:58 PM

I think the question was fair. I was glad to view the video and obtain the verbatim question. I think the Butler student that asked it had good intentions.

I think that Chelsea had an opportunity to handle it differently. Why not say that it was a painful experience for her mom and that she thinks her mom's credibility is shown in her courage to face the public while dedicating her life to making this country better.

Chelsea did appear arrogant, defensive and a bit mean-spirited in her response.

Posted by: cwillhyattsville | March 26, 2008 4:58 PM

Well, is it fair to group Hillary with the actions of Bill? It seems like Hillary wants to group Obama with Wright. And, she says she would have left Wright's church for what he SAID (although it has been clearly proven that it has been taken way out of context), but why did she not leave Bill for what he DID?!? Don't actions speak louder than words? She is all talk, and no walk. BAM!

Posted by: Ian | March 26, 2008 5:07 PM

Chelsea is acting on her mother's behalf as a spokesperson. Hillary's judgement in a crisis is entirely relevant to our collective judgement as to her fitness for the office of President of the United States. Her judgement during a major family crisis can enlighten our judgement. Shame on Chelsea for ducking a difficult and question simply because it reminds her of an unpleasant period in her own life. If you don't want to answer questions about your mother's judgement you should not be in public supporting your mother's campaign and, by inference, her good judgement in the face of a crisis.

Posted by: llex | March 26, 2008 5:08 PM

Maybe her chickens are coming home to roost!

Posted by: Ian | March 26, 2008 5:09 PM

"Do you really believe that Bill Clinton is the only political figure that has strayed?"

How we forget what we want to forget. Bill Clinton was NOT impeached for straying., or for being immoral. He was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH about it. Which by the way carries a penalty of up three years in prison. You or I would have gone to prison. But he being a Clinton did not. Now it is coming back to bite them.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 5:13 PM

Of course it's fair to ask such a question. It's all fair game, isn't it? This is the modern world. We like it real. Whether it's common decency or whatever other outdated concept, if it stands in our way of us getting our daily dose of dirt, it's got to go. Such a clever young man may have a future in journalism, as he seems to have a real sense for what people really need to know. Maybe someday he'll be asking tough questions like:

"Can we film the operation?" and "Is the head dead yet?"

Posted by: Racter | March 26, 2008 5:16 PM

Who cares?

Posted by: Threesticks | March 26, 2008 5:22 PM

Now, let us see. Which presidents and public officials should the saintly commentators tar? To name a few: Thomas Jefferson. FDR, Newt Gingrich, etc. You morality experts could dig up all the dirt through the annals of US history. Did Barack do it? Did Michelle? How about McCain? And Ted?

I am not really interested in all the soap operas but the there should be enough fodder out there to keep you busy throughout your lifetime without even looking at other issues such as the Iraq war that Obama supportes had supported too, the economy that you Clinton haters probably do not care to talk about, health care costs that will send middle class people to poverty, etc.

Gore did not lose the election because of Clinton. He was the winner despite the bad press he got for "lack" of CHARISMA. He did not become president because of election shenanigans. Kerry did not have "charisma" neither but is that Clinton's fault too?

If St. Obama will become POTUS, he should be carefully watched to make sure that he delivers on his HOPES. The man walks on water so he must be the Messiah!


Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 5:23 PM

The question should have been directed to Mrs. Clinton, not Chelsea, son's and daughter's do not have to answer for their parents mistakes and should not be accounted for their credebility.

Posted by: J de Leon | March 26, 2008 5:25 PM

Is the Question Fair? I would have asked if in light of the Monika scandle if she feels that there is a conflict of interest with her mother becoming President and her father being the First Man? Am I the only one that sees a problem here??? Right or Wrong this man was impeached and now he's going back to the White House? If you listen to the original question it wasn't about Monika it was about Hilary Clinton. Answer the Question!

Posted by: S. Bowers | March 26, 2008 5:25 PM

Is the Question Fair? I would have asked if in light of the Monika scandle if she feels that there is a conflict of interest with her mother becoming President and her father being the First Man? Am I the only one that sees a problem here??? Right or Wrong this man was impeached and now he's going back to the White House? If you listen to the original question it wasn't about Monika it was about Hilary Clinton. Answer the Question!

Posted by: S. Bowers | March 26, 2008 5:25 PM

The question should have been directed to Mrs. Clinton, not Chelsea, son's and daughter's do not have to answer for their parents mistakes and should not be accounted for their credebility.

Posted by: J de Leon | March 26, 2008 5:26 PM

The name of the idiot who asked the question is "STRANGE>'- Evan Strange! His editor thought that the question was inappropriate and that was an unnecessary distraction.

All you Obama fans should think bout your and your parents' affairs and try to imagine how you would answer them in a public forum.

Question for Sally Quinn:
How much more did Ben Bradlee have to pay his first wife so she wouldn't say you broke up their marriage?

Posted by: Samelson Jr. | March 26, 2008 5:28 PM

I am very disappointed that no one in the Media has asked Chelsea if her mother can be considered a real feminist while standing by her man and not saying anything after the Juanita incident. When she cried that Bill tried to rape AND kill her she sounded 100% authentic to me or that is the greatest acting job ever. Of course the charges were dropped through Executive Privilage. But if Bill didn't do it why doesn't Hillary have him take a lie detector test on 60 MInutes about it. It won't be admissible in court and will settle for most of us if he is guilty or innocent. I promise Hillary, I promise, I will vote for you if Bill takes a lie detector test on whether he was trying to rape and then Kill Juanita from the best guy in the business and then passes it. But then again I guess Hillary is too tired to address that one. Well at least Bill hasn't gotten the STDs like JFK- at least I haven't seen Hillary go bind yet. Fascinating thought how many Nixoninian Fems will laugh and love how HIllary makes it despite the fact that in so many ways she is a threat to their agenda. Wow guess it's only about rich white women getting to be the center of attention party girls. You can bet they won't help any blacks- it's all about them. But it is great that HIllary "ain't no tired no how". But don't be surprised if you hear burn the mother down if she steals the election by getting those lovable but nerdy white kid superdelegates a lifetime supply of truck stop gals and KFC and Pizza Hut. Oh oh- I don't even have an opinion...

Posted by: Donny Wallace | March 26, 2008 5:28 PM

Yes It is fair game. And frankly I believe Chelsea did a poor job in responding to it. This was her chance to say something to in the way of: Although I don't believe this is the forum to discuss my family's private life, I do believe my mom showed great strength during that struggling time. Then, she shows her distain for the question but also adds something postive about her mother.

Posted by: kris | March 26, 2008 5:29 PM

I believe Hillary's credibility of how she handled the entire scandal is an issue that should be discussed by the public. If Obama gets questioned about his previous preacher and his beliefs, then Hillary and her campaigners should be questioned about Hillary's past. I think asking about Hillary's reputation from the scandal should have been mentioned. However, I also believe the question was worded in a way that could have been misconstrued as offensive toward her mother. If Chelsea was given a second chance and the question was phrased differently, then I hope she would have answered the question expressing how her mother was going to overcome the reputation the affair created. Her focus should have been on her mother's strengths and making her look the best in any question that was brought up. Giving a speedy retort does not show the most positive aspects of the campaign. I think Hillary often answers with snide remarks, so Chelsea is just responding in a manner much like her mother. Positive answers lead to higher ratings, Chelsea. Look for a way to word the negative positively. I think she should prepare herself for any and all questions asked. If you offer yourself to be a spokesperson, then you are not off limits to the more difficult questions. I hope she doesn't think a college student will not ask what a reporter might ask.

Posted by: Angela Smith | March 26, 2008 5:29 PM

I believe Hillary's credibility of how she handled the entire scandal is an issue that should be discussed by the public. If Obama gets questioned about his previous preacher and his beliefs, then Hillary and her campaigners should be questioned about Hillary's past. I think asking about Hillary's reputation from the scandal should have been mentioned. However, I also believe the question was worded in a way that could have been misconstrued as offensive toward her mother. If Chelsea was given a second chance and the question was phrased differently, then I hope she would have answered the question expressing how her mother was going to overcome the reputation the affair created. Her focus should have been on her mother's strengths and making her look the best in any question that was brought up. Giving a speedy retort does not show the most positive aspects of the campaign. I think Hillary often answers with snide remarks, so Chelsea is just responding in a manner much like her mother. Positive answers lead to higher ratings, Chelsea. Look for a way to word the negative positively. I think she should prepare herself for any and all questions asked. If you offer yourself to be a spokesperson, then you are not off limits to the more difficult questions. I hope she doesn't think a college student will not ask what a reporter might ask.

Posted by: Angela Smith | March 26, 2008 5:30 PM

No, it is not fair. Never have I been so impressed with the way such a stupidly inappropriate question was handled.

Posted by: Rev. Simeon | March 26, 2008 5:30 PM

The question was about her mother's credibility concerning a situation. Of course it is fair game. Chelsea should have had an answer. She is not a child. If she is going to campaign, she should have a gracious, believable answer for all questions. A simple "yes" or "no" would have been sufficient. What if she were asked about her mother's credibility in any other circumstance? Is that no one's business too? Credibility of all candidates is everyone's buisness.

Posted by: fair question | March 26, 2008 5:35 PM

"Chelsea should have answered the question because it is a legitimate issue concerning the background of Mrs Clinton."

Only a young person barely out if his teens could ask a boorish question like this kid did. Give this Strange kid 10-20 years and he'll find out first-hand what kinds of accommodations married people make to keep their families and their lives together. It was a tasteless question and if anything Hillary is the stronger of the two Democratic candidates for having endured the experience.

Posted by: rbk | March 26, 2008 5:39 PM

Quote: "Clinton haters probably do not care to talk about, health care costs that will send middle class people to poverty, etc."

Hmm, when Hillary garnishes your wages to pay for her "free" health care as she says she just might do, you will be clamoring for the good old days. Nothing is free.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 5:40 PM

No. It isn't ANYBODY'S BUSINESS.

Posted by: Marc | March 26, 2008 5:46 PM

I CANNOT BELIEVE HOW MANY OF YOU FOLKS TOTALLY DON'T GET WHAT THE QUESTION WAS.....

THERE WAS NOTHING PERSONAL ABOUT IT. THERE WAS NO COMMENT ABOUT THE AFFAIR OR ACTIONS OF LEWINSKI OR THE PRESIDENT. THE QUESTION WAS VERY GOOD AND ADDRESSED MRS. CLINTON'S ORIGINAL RESPONSE. HRC SAID THAT THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT WAS MADE UP BY SOME RIGHT WING CRAZY TRYING TO START A RUMOR TO DISCREDIT THE PRESIDENT. HRC DID NOT ADDRESS THESE ACCUSATIONS WHEN THE TRUTH CAME OUT.

EVAN SIMPLY ASKED ABOUT HRC'S CREDIBILITY IN LIGHT OF HER DENIAL OF THE TRUTH.

IT IS CLEAR TO ME WHY WASHINGTON D.C. IS IN SUCH A MESS. THE PEOPLE ONLY WATCH SOUNDBITES PRESENTED BY BIASED JOURNALISTS AND VOTE BASED ON MINIMAL INFORMATION. READ! READ READ!

GET INFORMED. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT PASTOR WRIGHT, READ HIS SERMONS. TV SOUNDBITES HAVE WAY TOO MUCH POWER.

I SUPPORT MCCAIN AND HOPE THE CONGRESS WILL CLOSE OUR BORDERS AND THROW OUT THE ILLEGALS.

Posted by: intelligent | March 26, 2008 5:49 PM

The question was not a personal attack on Clinton, but Chelsea took it as one.

All she had to do was segue into a talk about her mother's strength or the cohesiveness of the family during a difficult time and how that makes her mother the perfect candidate for President.

Chelsea failed on this test. If people can criticize Obama about his pastor or McCain about his questionable relationship with a lobbyist, then this question doesnt fall far from the tree and should be answered. If Hillary becomes President, am I supposed to accept 'none of your business' as a stock answer?

Posted by: GemStar | March 26, 2008 5:50 PM

All Chelsea had to say was 'No, my mother's creditbility was not hurt. She's gone on to represent the State of NY in the Senate, blah, blah, blah.'

Through lack of an answer, ANY ANSWER other than "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" does in itself show some lack of creditibility, if nothing else than to turn a somewhat negative question into a positive -- Spin 101.

Posted by: GemStar2 | March 26, 2008 5:55 PM

What is the point of the question?

1. Yes my mother has lost her credibility.

2. No, my mother has not lost her credibility.

We have all seen Hillary's "Never-say-die" attitude since then and that is what we admire in her.

Posted by: Rockyeastcoast | March 26, 2008 6:15 PM

Of course it is fair. Ms. Clinton has made herself fair game by being involved in the campaign. Besides, she's 28, not 13.

Posted by: Howzie | March 26, 2008 6:15 PM

You bet it was a fair question! She wants to act like a grownup and campighn for mommy, you bet! If we remember correctly, it was her mommy that went on TV and said 'it is a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY'.
Little girl wants to act like a grownup,
then act like a grownup, but she just wants campagning for mommy, better get ready for the questions...to quote her daddy, if ya don't want to get beat up, don't get into politics'.....and she did and she did....

Posted by: Jim | March 26, 2008 6:16 PM

It's totally fair to ask Chelsea. People have started asking. Free ride is over. Time to be vetted. But we know what the clinton response would be. Lies and more lies.

clinton condition: 'diarrhea of the mouth'
- Lies flow out like water - A million words - a million Lies. Small lies, big lies, rude lies, crude lies, impolite lies, inconsiderate lies, selfish lies, offensive lies, insulting lies .. tell me when :)

Michelle Malkin in New York Post's 'Hill's little Lies - Bosnia Bunk & a Truth-Deficit Disorder' says: "The more she speaks, the more she 'mis'-speaks. Finally, truth in Clinton advertising! (In our family, by the way, we call this condition "diarrhea of the mouth.)"

Posted by: diarrhea of the mouth | March 26, 2008 6:19 PM

What if we never had the scandal, would we then still question her credibility? I think we still will want to.

Posted by: Rockyeastcoast | March 26, 2008 6:21 PM

Baloney. Chelsea was right. It (the Clinton marriage) was none of our business. It still is none of our business. And the one thing Evan is not is a Hillary supporter. He's probably not even a democrat.

And Sally Quinn should be ashamed of herself. You would have thought she would have known better.

Posted by: jan | March 26, 2008 6:24 PM

Of course it is fair! Chelsea she should have answered the question accurately, and honestly. She is campaigning for her mother, she is a Clinton through and through. She has been taught well to evade, lie, or to just plain tell America it is none of their business. Hillary bold faced LIED dodging bullets smiling and looking as though she was reminising. I am very disappointed her. She too can get in front of cameras and look America in the eye and lie like her husband. They will say and do anything to win. T

Posted by: kimberly johnson | March 26, 2008 6:24 PM

Of course it is fair! Chelsea she should have answered the question accurately, and honestly. She is campaigning for her mother, she is a Clinton through and through. She has been taught well to evade, lie, or to just plain tell America it is none of their business. Hillary bold faced LIED dodging bullets smiling and looking as though she was reminising. I am very disappointed her. She too can get in front of cameras and look America in the eye and lie like her husband. They will say and do anything to win. T

Posted by: kimberly johnson | March 26, 2008 6:24 PM

Of course it is fair! Chelsea she should have answered the question accurately, and honestly. She is campaigning for her mother, she is a Clinton through and through. She has been taught well to evade, lie, or to just plain tell America it is none of their business. Hillary bold faced LIED dodging bullets smiling and looking as though she was reminising. I am very disappointed her. She too can get in front of cameras and look America in the eye and lie like her husband. They will say and do anything to win. T

Posted by: kimberly johnson | March 26, 2008 6:24 PM

By the way, when do we get to pin the twins to the wall in an attempt to pry into the Bush marriage? After all if it's good for one, it's good enough for the other and given the fact that Bush was a party animal till he was forty, there should be lots to find...

Posted by: jan | March 26, 2008 6:27 PM

why is "none of your business" or just a "I refuse to answer that question bcoz it is just makes no sense" not an answer to a stupid personal question.

Posted by: Rockyeastcoast | March 26, 2008 6:30 PM

It's not about what's fair or off limits, it's about decency. People can ask what they want, but asking anyone publicly a question related to a parent's infidelity is pretty inappropriate.

She's under no obligation to answer questions she finds inappropriate.

Posted by: jad | March 26, 2008 6:33 PM

Yes, it's a fair question.

Read what others have said before you post, people. You could save yourself the few minutes it takes to type up something that has already been asked many times over, and you could probably get your answer too.

I'm a Butler student. As Mick stated, the question wasn't really a personal question at all. Evan didn't ask how she coped when she found out. That's a personal question. He didn't ask why she's still with him after it. That's a personal question. What he DID ask is how the scandal is affecting her campaining. Simple, NONPERSONAL question. Read, people! Don't put words into poor Evan's mouth! He asked a simple question that had a simple answer, but not only did he not get it, he got insulted by a WOMAN (not a child!) who should have answered the question. If she had answered, it could possibly have HELPED her mother's campaign. But she didn't think about the question asked, she put words into his mouth, assumed he was prying, and dissed him. He is (or was, not so sure now, I bet) a Hillary supporter, genuinely curious about the answer.

And to those who've said it's irrelevant-- you so sure now? Now that you know the ACTUAL question that was asked??

Posted by: Butler Student | March 26, 2008 6:37 PM

If I question barrack about his mother's relationships and if he replied with a "none of your business" reply would that make a bad reply.

Posted by: Rockyeastcoast | March 26, 2008 6:39 PM

Of course it's fair; if she is going to campaign then yes. Why should she get special treatment from sensitive issues? She already receives special treatment from the media that others do not. Excuse me, but she is nobody special. We are all equal,are we not?

Also, the pubs and demos both had something to say about Cheney's daughter being a lesbian.

If you aren't tough enough to be in the public eye then politics is not the place for you, stay home!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 6:40 PM

If I question barrack about his mother's relationships and if he replied with a "none of your business" reply would that make a bad reply.

Posted by: Rockyeastcoast | March 26, 2008 6:42 PM

The question should not have been asked. And yes if Chelsea does not want to speak to the media, then she does not have to, she is not running for leader, she is supporting her mother and it is her choice to do that however she'd like to. Leave her be. The question of Lewinsky is ridiculous, what relevance does it have? I disagree with Sally Quinn who says if you are running for President, then everything is everyone's business. No it is not! That is the problem today, people think they are entitled to know every personal detail of everyone else. And a daughter or son of the candidate does not have to answer any of those questions even if they are supportive and on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Kelly | March 26, 2008 6:48 PM

Fair? Sure. Rude? Yeah. Poorly phrased, if we take the student at his word as to why he was asking? Yeah.
Snippy response? Yeah. But the whole exchange is unlikely to change anybody's mind about their vote.

However, for those who consider HRC's defense of Bill in the Lewinsky case to be irrelevant, you should remember that it was only one in a long string of "stand-by-your-man" moments for her. She engaged in repeated character assassination against women who went public with allegations of sexual harrassment and, essentially, sexual assault by WJC, allegations that the preponderance of evidence now available strongly suggests were true. I find it hard to believe that she could not have known by the time he was running for president that these things were true - if she didn't "know," it was the kind of ignorance that comes from willfully closing your eyes to something. So as a woman, I'd like to know how she gets to claim the support of feminists after decades of supporting a sexual predator through character assassinations on the women her husband had already victimized? When does she answer for enabling his sexual predation on a greatly subordinate employee hardly older than his daughter - and several years younger than Chelsea, who is so fragile she has to be protected from rude questions while campaigning?

Posted by: silver spring | March 26, 2008 6:49 PM

If I question barrack about his mother's relationships and if he replied with a "none of your business" reply would that make a bad reply.

Are we basing our opinion bcoz

1. We love obama
2. We are for free press (However stupid it might be)
3. We refuse to take " none of your business" bcoz it is rude on the viewer.

rockyeastcoast@hotmail.com

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 6:54 PM

I fail to understand, still, why the whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing happened to land on front page news? I mean, come on, who in politics didn't know that Kennedy was the biggest horn dog in contemporary history. One blow job with Clinton pales in comparison to the hundreds of women that made their way through the Kennedy White House. Why do Americans revere Kennedy and adore Jackie in comparison to the Clintons? Too bad no one ever asked Jackie or Carolyn if she knew if her husband was banging Marilyn Monroe? Were her papers scrutinized to see if she was in the White House when Kennedy's trysts were paraded through???

Posted by: Canada | March 26, 2008 6:57 PM

Chelsea missed a great opportunity to brag on her mother's faithfulness & diligence to her commitment to her husband & her family. A faithfulness & diligence that could Chelsea could have bragged would spread to all aspects of her mother's life, including her commitment to the U.S. It's a question that a lot of people have and it needs to be addressed sooner or later, too bad Chelsea missed her opportunity to tastefully address this topic.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 6:59 PM

Premise 1 - The particular question was about a political aspect of the Lewinsky escapades. Transparently so, it was not personal.

Premise 2 - Chelsea Clinton is an active adult participant in Hilary Clinton's political campaign.

Premise 3 - Such political campaign participants should be available/held responsible for political questions.

Conclusion - There was nothing inappropriate about the question. The response, however understandable, was a cop out.

What Chelsea did, if anything, was further the argument against dynastic politics.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 7:14 PM

Premise 1 - The particular question was about a political aspect of the Lewinsky escapades. Transparently so, it was not personal.

Premise 2 - Chelsea Clinton is an active adult participant in Hilary Clinton's political campaign.

Premise 3 - Such political campaign participants should be available/held responsible for political questions.

Conclusion - There was nothing inappropriate about the question. The response, however understandable, was a cop out.

What Chelsea did, if anything, was further the argument against dynastic politics.

Posted by: Maggie | March 26, 2008 7:14 PM

Hilary sent a bad message to women everywhere when she stood by Bill. When will a politicians wife stand up and say "you know what honey, you screwed up and I'm dumping you"
The message she sent is, it's ok to let your man cheat. This is just a business to us anyway.
Chelsea should have answered the question. It was a perfectly legitimate question. and quite frankly, she's a nobody and her opinion really doesn't matter. A vote for a Clinton is a vote for socialism. Hmmm Obama too. yikes Good luck America. Glad I'm not one of you.

Posted by: Big D | March 26, 2008 7:15 PM

Does anyone crying "foul" realize that the question was less material than the answer? This young woman will be in the White House and a strong influence on the Leader of the Free World, if HRC gets elected. I think her opinion and answers to any question ARE RELEVANT. Maybe we should ask more difficult questions and listen more closely to the answers BEFORE we elect a President. Chelsea is no more than a spoiled, narcisist who feels completely entitled, just like her parents. What a waste of a million-dollar, Ivy leauge education honey.

Posted by: PISSED OFF | March 26, 2008 7:45 PM

Someone further up said that well, does that make Ogamas girls fair game? I hardly think we are comparing apples here. Chelsea has put herself out there...she has entered the political arena and sometimes the questions aren't too delicate. Well??? How come she is to be handled like a kid glove? Once again somehow the Clintons get special rules. Bill's behavior brought shame and certainly foreign governments who already consider us infidals will love Bill as first man.

Posted by: Eileen | March 26, 2008 8:02 PM

"Hilary sent a bad message to women everywhere when she stood by Bill."
Posted by: Big D | March 26, 2008 07:15 PM

You are wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a decision that was Hillary Clinton's alone and it did NOT send the wrong message to women. It sent a message that she did what was right for her. It could have been based on old-fashioned mores, religious grounds, political expediency, or a myriad of other reasons.

To me it represented an extremely strong union that could overcome the most humiliating circumstance ever imposed on a marriage. I am just stunned that more admiration would be given to someone who would abandon their vows and divorce, rather than someone who chose to stick it out and honor their vows. Strange.

Posted by: Shiloh | March 26, 2008 8:04 PM

Uh Oh, From today:

Already, leading Democrats, concerned about how the increasingly nasty primary fight is damaging the eventual nominee, have started talking about ways to bring the race to a close. Their efforts, at least for now, are largely designed to pressure Clinton not to prolong her campaign.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has threatened to convene a superdelegate meeting, though such an event seems unlikely to occur. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said this week that he's spoken with party chairman Howard Dean and that "things are being done" to wrap up the contest before the convention.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 8:06 PM

Chelsea IS a well educated (Stanford, Oxford) professional young adult who willingly and actively decided to campaign for her mother; as the daughter of a former President and a potential Mrs. President she should have responded to this question with more TACT and INTELLECT, even if it was only to say, in other words, no comment (but to state "it's none of your business"???). Why campaign for your Mother if you are not willing to take the "heat" that comes with it? Her parents have a controversial past and present and Ms. Clinton should know there's margin for questions like this during a presidential campaign. YES, a presidential candidate's credibility, character AND life are of the public's interest, otherwise how could we make responsible decisions on who we vote for? (Don't like the scrutiny, then don't run for president). The question caught her "off curve" and was not the easiest to hear/answer as a daughter, but the reality is this and many other controversial issues are part of Hillary's life AS A PUBLIC FIGURE and PUBLIC SERVANT. The public eye/taxpayers/voters have the right to have their questions answered when it comes to Hillary Clinton, President Bush, any presidential candidate and public servants. Chelsea might not have been the best person to answer this particular question and, as she demonstrated, is definitely not prepared for the campaign "punches"; she missed a great opportunity to speak highly of Hillary Clinton, but I do not even think Chelsea's opinion on her mother's credibility is of any relevance... history and facts speak for themselves, you decide.

Posted by: MMC | March 26, 2008 8:08 PM

Of course it's fair. If Chelsea can't handle anything but softball questions thrown to her by momma's shills ,she should get off the campaign trail.

Posted by: Mountaineer | March 26, 2008 8:13 PM

Of course it's fair. If Chelsea can't handle anything but softball questions thrown to her by momma's shills ,she should get off the campaign trail.

Posted by: Mountaineer | March 26, 2008 8:13 PM

In a political race, all questions are fair game (as unfair as that may seem) but not every question has to be answered directly...

I respect Chelsea's decision not to answer the question. You can see it raised some deep feelings.

Hilary deserves some credit for taking a stand and letting it be known that this is a personal topic and is off limits for her. I am sure she will have a more refined answer next time around :-)

Posted by: A Canadian's Perspective | March 26, 2008 8:15 PM

In a political race, all questions are fair game (as unfair as that may seem) but not every question has to be answered directly...

I respect Chelsea's decision not to answer the question. You can see it raised some deep feelings.

Chelsea deserves some credit for taking a stand and letting it be known that this is a personal topic and is off limits for her. I am sure she will have a more refined answer next time around :-)

Posted by: A Canadian's Perspective | March 26, 2008 8:16 PM

I tend to agree that this is a valid avenue to pursue in questioning the Clinton campaign, of which Chelsea is a part. Remember that...she is just one more surrogate out there to dilute and deflect pressure off her Mother. My own reason to consider this a valid concern is that Bill will also occupy the White house. He will have much more time on his hands to get into trouble, and who out there really thinks he will ever behave? It will be a big distraction for Hillary and could seriously affect her ability to govern.

Posted by: DAM | March 26, 2008 8:29 PM

It was a pretty lame question, and her answer was right on. When is it ever fair to ask a daughter or son to comment on their parents' sex lives and marriage publicly? Since when does someone's running for public office mean we have the right to be total jerks? Perhaps this is just more sad evidence of how dumb people are getting, the sad truth about what happens when kids going to college for a degree rather than an education, and how the media and the public seem to watch a presidential race like an episode of Springer. Come on people, let's stick to the issues of this century.

Posted by: gratonite | March 26, 2008 8:34 PM

Chelsea showed poise and admirable presence of mind in her reply. She clearly benefits from Bill and Hill's extra-extra smart genes.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 26, 2008 8:35 PM

As the woman commented in the 2nd video, when someone is considered for President of the country, things both good and bad come into the light and are "everyone's business." As an adult Chelsea should respect this right of the American People.

Posted by: Carly | March 26, 2008 8:35 PM

absolutely "NO". Poor question from this student. I am so sorry for the student who asked the question. He haven't learned much in school to be embroiled himself in trashes.

Ms. Clinton gave him the perfect answer.

Posted by: mary smith | March 26, 2008 8:37 PM

It was a rude question and it quite deservedly got a rude response.

Posted by: JanetP | March 26, 2008 8:47 PM

While the question seemed a bit rude and out of the blue, Bill did get a blow-job in a tax-payer bought office and during tax-payer time.

I think we should ask ourselves what kind of scrutiny we would get if we get caught at work getting a blow-job.

Posted by: jlm062002 | March 26, 2008 8:56 PM

I always questioned Hillary's courage and self-respect; being that she did not have the valor to leave the man that cheated and embarrassed her in front of the whole world. Yet, I know now that she wanted to hand on to Bill so she could use him to run for office.

Posted by: jlm062002 | March 26, 2008 9:04 PM

Yes it's fair. Chelsea is speaking to promote her mother's strengths to become leader of the free world!! Of course it's our business if her credibility is in question. And it would've looked a lot better for Hillary if Chelsea had a prepared answer. Small minds, they've all been in the public eye and lived through a Presidential lie (to the public as well as the family).

Posted by: R.Feret | March 26, 2008 9:12 PM

I think this was a fair question
Chelsea is campaigning for her mother to aquire the YOUNG ADULT VOTE. any young voter is going to think of the lewinsky scandal when thinking of the name Clinton.
it was a fair question

Posted by: Paula | March 26, 2008 9:18 PM

I think Chelsea handled herself very well. The question was out of line and putting a daughter on trial for a parent's failures is over the top. I applaud Chelsea's unrelenting desire to work for mother. You can say what you want about Bill and Hillary, but IMO they did a very good job raising Chelsea. I have always thought that. As with all people, there is plenty to like about Bill and Hillary as well as things to dislike. It is keeping those views in balance that is important.

Posted by: verycold | March 26, 2008 9:35 PM

The real question who is running for office here, Hillary or the whole Clinton family? Why is so self-serving that she would send her daughter into such an arena.
I guess the Clintons are still power hungry!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 9:45 PM

Jeremiah Wright stood up for Bill Clinton and supported him in 1998.

Hillary Clinton stayed with her husband even though her husband had a sexually abusive relationship with an intern.

Barack Obama stood by Jeremiah Wright while condemning his inappropriate remarks.

Hillary Clinton said that Barack Obama should have walked away from Jeremiah Wright and the entire church.

Barack Obama said that Jeremiah Wright was like family.

Hillary Clinton said you "choose your church, you don't choose your family".

But don't you choose your husband?

And if your husband commits adultery, then don't you have a CHOICE about whether you stay or not?

Posted by: benintn | March 26, 2008 9:50 PM

I think the subject matter of the question was fair game given that Chelsea, a twenty-nine year old woman, has chosen to take a public stance and openly support her mother's bid for the Presidency. Chelsea chose to participate in an open debate and to take questions from those in attendance. It's time that reporters and the public stop kid gloving her.

Posted by: Laslow | March 26, 2008 10:07 PM

I would say no, but William Jefferson Clinton roared yes this week. So don't blame me, the media, or anyone but Daddy if the gloves are off with respect to this matter.

If you don't want to get tackled, don't put on the pads... that is what he said, right?

Posted by: Opsimath | March 26, 2008 10:15 PM

Its all fair game! She is an adult.

Posted by: Pam Brown | March 26, 2008 10:23 PM

AS AN ONLY CHILD WHO HAS STOOD IN CHELSEA'S SHOES REGARDING HER PARENTS, LET ME TELL EVERYONE OF YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS PHARISEES (MANY OF WHO ARE PROBABLY GUILTY OF ADULTERY YOURSELVES) THIS QUESTION CUTS TO THE QUICK. THE INFERENCE IS THAT CHELSEA IS SOMEHOW RESPONSIBLE. WE HAVE NO SENSIBILITIES IN THIS COUNTRY ANYMORE. WE ARE MEAN SPIRITED, SELFISH, AND HAVE NO MORALS OR MANNERS. WE'VE BECOME DOWNRIGHT IGNORANT. MOREOVER, IF HILLARY WANTS TO FORGIVE HER HUSBAND, THAT'S A SIGN OF STRENGTH, NOT WEAKNESS. MOST OF YOU WOULD CALL JESUS WEAK BECAUSE HE ALSO FORGAVE THOSE WHO DIDN'T ASK FORGIVENESS OR EVEN DESERVE IT. YOU NEED TO RE-LEARN CHRISTIAN VALUES BY GOING TO CHURCH INSTEAD OF JUST MOUTHING OFF. AT LEAST SHE HAS KEPT HER FAMILY TOGETHER. IF MORE OF US WOULD SWALLOW OUR PRIDE AND FORGIVE, WE'D HAVE FAR FEWER BROKEN HOMES AND CHILDREN. CHECK IT OUT AGAINST THE "GOOD BOOK."

Posted by: Brenda | March 26, 2008 11:27 PM

AS AN ONLY CHILD WHO HAS STOOD IN CHELSEA'S SHOES REGARDING HER PARENTS, LET ME TELL EVERYONE OF YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS PHARISEES (MANY OF WHO ARE PROBABLY GUILTY OF ADULTERY YOURSELVES) THIS QUESTION CUTS TO THE QUICK. THE INFERENCE IS THAT CHELSEA IS SOMEHOW RESPONSIBLE. WE HAVE NO SENSIBILITIES IN THIS COUNTRY ANYMORE. WE ARE MEAN SPIRITED, SELFISH, AND HAVE NO MORALS OR MANNERS. WE'VE BECOME DOWNRIGHT IGNORANT. MOREOVER, IF HILLARY WANTS TO FORGIVE HER HUSBAND, THAT'S A SIGN OF STRENGTH, NOT WEAKNESS. MOST OF YOU WOULD CALL JESUS WEAK BECAUSE HE ALSO FORGAVE THOSE WHO DIDN'T ASK FORGIVENESS OR EVEN DESERVE IT. YOU NEED TO RE-LEARN CHRISTIAN VALUES BY GOING TO CHURCH INSTEAD OF JUST MOUTHING OFF. AT LEAST SHE HAS KEPT HER FAMILY TOGETHER. IF MORE OF US WOULD SWALLOW OUR PRIDE AND FORGIVE, WE'D HAVE FAR FEWER BROKEN HOMES AND CHILDREN. CHECK IT OUT AGAINST THE "GOOD BOOK."

Posted by: Brenda | March 26, 2008 11:27 PM

Of course it legal and within the huge boundaries of political behavior, but NO it is not moral--or sensitive-- to ask this of the daughter. Morality, a concept that has almost disappeared in American politics and in the media. Two wrongs etc.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 11:29 PM

Of course it legal and within the huge boundaries of political behavior, but NO it is not moral--or sensitive-- to ask this of the daughter. Morality, a concept that has almost disappeared in American politics and in the media. Two wrongs etc.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 11:30 PM

Of course it legal and within the huge boundaries of political behavior, but NO it is not moral--or sensitive-- to ask this of the daughter. Morality, a concept that has almost disappeared in American politics and in the media. Two wrongs etc.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2008 11:30 PM

Any Obamopath who says that it is ok to ask the daughter of the candidate about her father's infidelity, which has no impact on anyone other than the family but has problems with the press (after a full year) releasing Rev. Wright quotes- when Barak has chosen to be around someone who says some very controversial POLITICAL, not family-based things is a hypocrite.

Your infatuation with your candidate is not a reason to constantly attack HRC and family. They are good people- keep it to politics and policy please!
Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 12:18 AM

why all this hand ringing about what an adult woman is asked about, particularly since the questioner himself says he supports hillary?

where was all this empathy when millions of parents had to have "that" conversation with their pre-teen daughters, who learned more from watching bill clinton squirm and lie on the nightly news, than they did on the playground?

the instances of the clintons being victims is a rosary without end ...

let's move on ...

Posted by: martin edwin 'mick' andersen | March 27, 2008 12:22 AM

why all this hand ringing about what an adult woman is asked about, particularly since the questioner himself says he supports hillary?

where was all this empathy when millions of parents had to have "that" conversation with their pre-teen daughters, who learned more from watching bill clinton squirm and lie on the nightly news, than they did on the playground?

the instances of the clintons being victims is a rosary without end ...

let's move on ...

Posted by: martin edwin 'mick' andersen | March 27, 2008 12:23 AM

Obama's supporters comments range from heartless, to cruel, to disgusting.

The show the kind of people the people who Obama attracts are.

To ask a person about their parent's sex lives is beyond the pale.

Its disgusting.

Lets talk about some of Obama's LIES, OK?

Obama's far worse. From DD --

Ok now why don't we take a look at some of the instances where St. Obama's misspoken, eh?


Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]


Twelve instances... when oh WHEN will they start doling out Pinocchios for these, eh?

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:33 AM

Though it may be out of line and rude to bring up her father's affair to her, I don't think that "None of your business" was the appropriate answer to the question, "Did the Lewinsky scandal damage your mother's credibility as a candidate." A simple "no" might have had a better impact, maybe followed by "and I think it's out of line for you to ask me that question in the first place".

Posted by: David Harris | March 27, 2008 1:03 AM

Good for Chelsea. That question was obviously intended to embarras and attack her and I'm glad she didn't play that game. I'm still voting for Obama, though.

Posted by: Todd K. | March 27, 2008 1:06 AM

Good for Chelsea. That question was obviously intended to embarras and attack her and I'm glad she didn't play that game. I'm still voting for Obama, though.

Posted by: Todd K. | March 27, 2008 1:06 AM

ugh, it's "you're cute" not "your cute". i just looked it up and this is a 3rd grade skill. certainly, someone with a communications degree should know the difference (as well as the editor!)

Posted by: grammar police | March 27, 2008 1:25 AM

Some of the young voters are being brain washed by Obama. This Evan is nothing but just a DOG who prtend to be Hillary supporter but the truth is he Obama supporter. The media is praising Obama speech even his Pastor humilated the Americans people. Regardless what Hillary does, the media see it wrong. The true picture here is that Obama and all his serrogates played the RACE CARD from the beginning of this race. If Obama get attack by Hillary. They will accused her of RACIST and the media will add fire on it. Obama camp was so quick to show the picture of his pastor with Bill Clinton to control the damage. Mr. Wright is not Clinton pastor and the Clinton never attended Mr. Wright sermons but Obama did for 30 years and claimed that he never heard Mr. Wright saying those anti- american but finally Obama admitted that he heard those derogative words against USA. So who is the big liar here. Hillary may lie for her trip to BOsnia but that is nothing compared that what Obama did protecting his pastor. How can anyone vote for Obama while he is known for having association with people who is against USA like Mr. Farrahan, Mr. Wright, Al Sharpton and other known religion leaders that against USA. This kind of attitude (anti- USA) and we as americans still supporting Obama can only seen in this country. Plain and simple, american is scared to elect a women as president because they are scared to find out that women can do a better job than men and the americans do not want to get embarrass with country countries that finally women are better than men. I can not imagine to see Michelle Obama as first lady of this country. Michelle Obama is only proud of this country because her husband is the front- runner but if it is the other way around they are loosing, The Obamas will accuss everyone as RACIST

Posted by: Peter | March 27, 2008 1:43 AM

Some of the young voters are being brain washed by Obama. This Evan is nothing but just a DOG who prtend to be Hillary supporter but the truth is he Obama supporter. The media is praising Obama speech even his Pastor humilated the Americans people. Regardless what Hillary does, the media see it wrong. The true picture here is that Obama and all his serrogates played the RACE CARD from the beginning of this race. If Obama get attack by Hillary. They will accused her of RACIST and the media will add fire on it. Obama camp was so quick to show the picture of his pastor with Bill Clinton to control the damage. Mr. Wright is not Clinton pastor and the Clinton never attended Mr. Wright sermons but Obama did for 30 years and claimed that he never heard Mr. Wright saying those anti- american but finally Obama admitted that he heard those derogative words against USA. So who is the big liar here. Hillary may lie for her trip to BOsnia but that is nothing compared that what Obama did protecting his pastor. How can anyone vote for Obama while he is known for having association with people who is against USA like Mr. Farrahan, Mr. Wright, Al Sharpton and other known religion leaders that against USA. This kind of attitude (anti- USA) and we as americans still supporting Obama can only seen in this country. Plain and simple, american is scared to elect a women as president because they are scared to find out that women can do a better job than men and the americans do not want to get embarrass with country countries that finally women are better than men. I can not imagine to see Michelle Obama as first lady of this country. Michelle Obama is only proud of this country because her husband is the front- runner but if it is the other way around they are loosing, The Obamas will accuss everyone as RACIST

Posted by: Peter | March 27, 2008 1:43 AM

Some of the young voters are being brain washed by Obama. This Evan is nothing but just a DOG who prtend to be Hillary supporter but the truth is he Obama supporter. The media is praising Obama speech even his Pastor humilated the Americans people. Regardless what Hillary does, the media see it wrong. The true picture here is that Obama and all his serrogates played the RACE CARD from the beginning of this race. If Obama get attack by Hillary. They will accused her of RACIST and the media will add fire on it. Obama camp was so quick to show the picture of his pastor with Bill Clinton to control the damage. Mr. Wright is not Clinton pastor and the Clinton never attended Mr. Wright sermons but Obama did for 30 years and claimed that he never heard Mr. Wright saying those anti- american but finally Obama admitted that he heard those derogative words against USA. So who is the big liar here. Hillary may lie for her trip to BOsnia but that is nothing compared that what Obama did protecting his pastor. How can anyone vote for Obama while he is known for having association with people who is against USA like Mr. Farrahan, Mr. Wright, Al Sharpton and other known religion leaders that against USA. This kind of attitude (anti- USA) and we as americans still supporting Obama can only seen in this country. Plain and simple, american is scared to elect a women as president because they are scared to find out that women can do a better job than men and the americans do not want to get embarrass with country countries that finally women are better than men. I can not imagine to see Michelle Obama as first lady of this country. Michelle Obama is only proud of this country because her husband is the front- runner but if it is the other way around they are loosing, The Obamas will accuss everyone as RACIST

Posted by: Peter | March 27, 2008 1:43 AM

Some of the young voters are being brain washed by Obama. This Evan is nothing but just a DOG who prtend to be Hillary supporter but the truth is he Obama supporter. The media is praising Obama speech even his Pastor humilated the Americans people. Regardless what Hillary does, the media see it wrong. The true picture here is that Obama and all his serrogates played the RACE CARD from the beginning of this race. If Obama get attack by Hillary. They will accused her of RACIST and the media will add fire on it. Obama camp was so quick to show the picture of his pastor with Bill Clinton to control the damage. Mr. Wright is not Clinton pastor and the Clinton never attended Mr. Wright sermons but Obama did for 30 years and claimed that he never heard Mr. Wright saying those anti- american but finally Obama admitted that he heard those derogative words against USA. So who is the big liar here. Hillary may lie for her trip to BOsnia but that is nothing compared that what Obama did protecting his pastor. How can anyone vote for Obama while he is known for having association with people who is against USA like Mr. Farrahan, Mr. Wright, Al Sharpton and other known religion leaders that against USA. This kind of attitude (anti- USA) and we as americans still supporting Obama can only seen in this country. Plain and simple, american is scared to elect a women as president because they are scared to find out that women can do a better job than men and the americans do not want to get embarrass with country countries that finally women are better than men. I can not imagine to see Michelle Obama as first lady of this country. Michelle Obama is only proud of this country because her husband is the front- runner but if it is the other way around they are loosing, The Obamas will accuss everyone as RACIST

Posted by: Peter | March 27, 2008 1:43 AM

Some of the young voters are being brain washed by Obama. This Evan is nothing but just a DOG who prtend to be Hillary supporter but the truth is he Obama supporter. The media is praising Obama speech even his Pastor humilated the Americans people. Regardless what Hillary does, the media see it wrong. The true picture here is that Obama and all his serrogates played the RACE CARD from the beginning of this race. If Obama get attack by Hillary. They will accused her of RACIST and the media will add fire on it. Obama camp was so quick to show the picture of his pastor with Bill Clinton to control the damage. Mr. Wright is not Clinton pastor and the Clinton never attended Mr. Wright sermons but Obama did for 30 years and claimed that he never heard Mr. Wright saying those anti- american but finally Obama admitted that he heard those derogative words against USA. So who is the big liar here. Hillary may lie for her trip to BOsnia but that is nothing compared that what Obama did protecting his pastor. How can anyone vote for Obama while he is known for having association with people who is against USA like Mr. Farrahan, Mr. Wright, Al Sharpton and other known religion leaders that against USA. This kind of attitude (anti- USA) and we as americans still supporting Obama can only seen in this country. Plain and simple, american is scared to elect a women as president because they are scared to find out that women can do a better job than men and the americans do not want to get embarrass with country countries that finally women are better than men. I can not imagine to see Michelle Obama as first lady of this country. Michelle Obama is only proud of this country because her husband is the front- runner but if it is the other way around they are loosing, The Obamas will accuss everyone as RACIST

Posted by: Peter | March 27, 2008 1:43 AM

Some of the young voters are being brain washed by Obama. This Evan is nothing but just a DOG who prtend to be Hillary supporter but the truth is he Obama supporter. The media is praising Obama speech even his Pastor humilated the Americans people. Regardless what Hillary does, the media see it wrong. The true picture here is that Obama and all his serrogates played the RACE CARD from the beginning of this race. If Obama get attack by Hillary. They will accused her of RACIST and the media will add fire on it. Obama camp was so quick to show the picture of his pastor with Bill Clinton to control the damage. Mr. Wright is not Clinton pastor and the Clinton never attended Mr. Wright sermons but Obama did for 30 years and claimed that he never heard Mr. Wright saying those anti- american but finally Obama admitted that he heard those derogative words against USA. So who is the big liar here. Hillary may lie for her trip to BOsnia but that is nothing compared that what Obama did protecting his pastor. How can anyone vote for Obama while he is known for having association with people who is against USA like Mr. Farrahan, Mr. Wright, Al Sharpton and other known religion leaders that against USA. This kind of attitude (anti- USA) and we as americans still supporting Obama can only seen in this country. Plain and simple, american is scared to elect a women as president because they are scared to find out that women can do a better job than men and the americans do not want to get embarrass with country countries that finally women are better than men. I can not imagine to see Michelle Obama as first lady of this country. Michelle Obama is only proud of this country because her husband is the front- runner but if it is the other way around they are loosing, The Obamas will accuss everyone as RACIST

Posted by: Peter | March 27, 2008 1:44 AM

Some of the young voters are being brain washed by Obama. This Evan is nothing but just a DOG who prtend to be Hillary supporter but the truth is he Obama supporter. The media is praising Obama speech even his Pastor humilated the Americans people. Regardless what Hillary does, the media see it wrong. The true picture here is that Obama and all his serrogates played the RACE CARD from the beginning of this race. If Obama get attack by Hillary. They will accused her of RACIST and the media will add fire on it. Obama camp was so quick to show the picture of his pastor with Bill Clinton to control the damage. Mr. Wright is not Clinton pastor and the Clinton never attended Mr. Wright sermons but Obama did for 30 years and claimed that he never heard Mr. Wright saying those anti- american but finally Obama admitted that he heard those derogative words against USA. So who is the big liar here. Hillary may lie for her trip to BOsnia but that is nothing compared that what Obama did protecting his pastor. How can anyone vote for Obama while he is known for having association with people who is against USA like Mr. Farrahan, Mr. Wright, Al Sharpton and other known religion leaders that against USA. This kind of attitude (anti- USA) and we as americans still supporting Obama can only seen in this country. Plain and simple, american is scared to elect a women as president because they are scared to find out that women can do a better job than men and the americans do not want to get embarrass with country countries that finally women are better than men. I can not imagine to see Michelle Obama as first lady of this country. Michelle Obama is only proud of this country because her husband is the front- runner but if it is the other way around they are loosing, The Obamas will accuss everyone as RACIST

Posted by: Peter | March 27, 2008 1:44 AM

ABSOLUTELY FAIR! The question was actually not so much about Lewinsky, it was about Hillary's credibility.

Posted by: Rain | March 27, 2008 1:46 AM

Chelsea Clinton ROCKS!
Great Response! Lets stick to the issues - our country is going down the drain, our economy is in the toilet, we got two wars that have no end in site, our gas is tearing family budgets apart - AND we want to bring up Lewinsky? C'mon now, Get a life!

Hillary 2008!

Posted by: East Side Love | March 27, 2008 1:52 AM

Yes it is very fair.

Bill lied about Monica.

Hillary fabricated a "bullets flying over her head" story. Chelsea was there, too.

It appears the whole family has a problem addressing the truth.

Posted by: Noel | March 27, 2008 2:29 AM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-self, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: jacksmith | March 27, 2008 2:46 AM

For all you dye-hards that are Clinton supporters go to www.rense.com search "Hillary the Movie". If after being presented with all the damning facts about your girl and you are still a Clinton supporter, then there is no hope for this United States. You sheep, wait scratch that, you Lemmings will follow eachother off the cliff no matter what.

To the horny dude, you are one sick puppy.

Chelsea is so ugly, that she has to put a bag over her head so sleep can slip up on her.

Posted by: argo | March 27, 2008 2:51 AM

For all you dye-hards that are Clinton supporters go to www.rense.com search "Hillary the Movie". If after being presented with all the damning facts about your girl and you are still a Clinton supporter, then there is no hope for this United States. You sheep, wait scratch that, you Lemmings will follow eachother off the cliff no matter what.

To the horny dude, you are one sick puppy.

Chelsea is so ugly, that she has to put a bag over her head so sleep can slip up on her.

Posted by: argo | March 27, 2008 2:53 AM

I am definately not any fan/supporter of the Clintons (Bill or Hillary). She should not be subjected to questions regarding the sins of her Mother or Father...

Posted by: John, Milwaukee | March 27, 2008 3:57 AM

Absolutely fair. Hillary blamed the right wing conspiracy for the affair. That couple needs to get out of town and away from the American people.

Posted by: Franco | March 27, 2008 8:32 AM

If Chelsea Clinton is out there saying we should vote for her mother, then absolutely ... the question is fair game. Hillary knew knew her husband's reputation, and yet insisted on staying with him AND defending him, AND blaming his indiscretions on their political enemies. Her acceptance and enabling of her husband's behavior becomes all the more troublesome when one considers the many women who were involuntarily subjected to Bill Clinton's unwanted advances, including one who claimed he raped her.

If we are told that this woman should make history and advance women's status by becoming the first female president, voters deserve an explanation why Bill Clinton's wife and daughter refused and continue to refuse to acknowledge the horrible price other women have paid just so this "family" can hold on to power. It's an ugly double-standard from two women who claim to know what's best for women. We deserve to know just how much abuse of women they will stand by and watch before they say "enough" to the brutal mistreatment of those women who dared to shine the spotlight on Bill Clinton's brutality.

There are many even tougher questions begging to be asked, but of course, we will only be told it's "none of your business." I guess I should be satisfied with that answer: It says far more about the Clinton ladies than any carefully crafted excuse Hillary or Chelsea might otherwise offer, and it isn't pretty.

Posted by: Alan | March 27, 2008 8:50 AM

Hillary just lost my vote. "...none of your business...". Maybe that would be an acceptable reply on the campaign trail...for a 7 year old...

Posted by: Voter123 | March 27, 2008 9:04 AM

What a poor question. What does an affair that Hillary's HUSBAND committed have to do with Hillary's credibility? If anything it shows her strength, tenacity, perserverance and sticking to a commitment that she made regardless of better or worse. Republican family values people ought to be impressed with her desire to keep the marriage and family together. So....let's talk about John McCain's divorce and remarriage. Did he cheat on his first wife? I don't know but based on the fact that he married his second wife only a month after the divorce was final, it would lead to speculation. How will THAT affect his ability to lead? How will the Christian Right Wing Conservatives think THAT affects HIS credibility?

Posted by: julia | March 27, 2008 9:27 AM

Yes; absolutely. If Chelsea wants to go out and campaign for her mother, which is her right, and perhaps her familial obligation, then she also has to expect the low blows that come when you enter the dirty world of Politics.

Now, come on! She is not a child--she is a college educated woman who has read the newspapers and knows her father's shenanigans from many different perspectives. It's a fair question to ask. It may not have a lot of relevance on Hillary's presidential abilities (or it might), but we know what Bill will be up to for 4 more years if she gets elected.

Posted by: Big Al | March 27, 2008 9:27 AM

It's not fair to ask a question about their personal lives that they obviously were strong enough to forgive and put behind them. Why ask the question? They are after all only human. It's as plain as the nose on your face! Hillary is stronger than most women, because most women would have packed it up, and left the marriage, taken the easy way out. Look at all the single parents in this country. Divorce is too easy. For better or worse, she stayed in and took the hard road. I have to respect that. Now if he did it again....well, that's another story.

Posted by: D Clifton | March 27, 2008 9:50 AM

There is no comparison here between Sen. Obama's children and Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton has elected to campaign for her mother. As a result, she should expect questions that may be uncomfortable, and even for some to be unseemly. Of course, she certainly has the right to refuse to answer. But, Sen. Clinton has elected raise the issue of "what it says about Obama" that he refused to leave his church because of offensive statements. Regardless of whether folks like Bill Clinton (which I do), the fact is, he lied under oath and to the American people when he volunteered to tell us all he did not have relations with Lewinsky. Notwithstanding these public (and his private) breaches of trust and truth, Sen. Clinton has hung in there. Particularly given Sen. Clinton's wanting to indict Sen. Obama for the company he keeps, this does raise questions, or certainly curiousity, as to "what that says" about Sen. Clinton, good or bad.

Posted by: SusanS | March 27, 2008 10:28 AM

Does anyone remember what the Congress did when the Lewinsky affair came to light? Deal with Health Care? The Economy? Education? No, the answer is...NOTHING other than spend days and millions of our dollars dealing with the Lewinsky affair and the President's lying about it.

You better believe it's our business! That affair was a huge part of the Clinton years and had a significant negative impact on our interests.

Hilary wants to say we should elect her because she was so tightly involved in her husband's presidency. So sorry, she gets to take the good with the bad.

Posted by: Joe in cleveland | March 27, 2008 10:37 AM

No, not only is the question tasteless but it is rude. I am sure that was a very painfilled time for Chelsea and her Mother, I see no reason to bring it up. The questioner was being hateful and spiteful. Most likely a deliberate planted question by the Obama people. They won't get more votes that way.

Posted by: leaand2 | March 27, 2008 10:55 AM

No, not only is the question tasteless but it is rude. I am sure that was a very painfilled time for Chelsea and her Mother, I see no reason to bring it up. The questioner was being hateful and spiteful. Most likely a deliberate planted question by the Obama people. They won't get more votes that way.

Posted by: leaand2 | March 27, 2008 10:55 AM

Free country. Freedom of speech. _Great_ question.

Chelsea will be asked about Lewinsky for the rest of her life. Blame Bill Clinton, not a college student.

Posted by: Bier | March 27, 2008 11:02 AM

Clinton is running for President and the American people have every right to ask this question or any question regarding the Clintons. It is a valid question. Bill should have thought about Chelsea getting asked these questions before he had Monica give him oral sex in "our" Whitehouse. Bill was a scoundrel and habitually had "extra maritial" affairs. Shame on you Bill Clinton for putting your daughter through this ordeal. Shame on you Hillary for putting your daughter through this ordea.

Posted by: Gary | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM

Clinton is running for President and the American people have every right to ask this question or any question regarding the Clintons. It is a valid question. Bill should have thought about Chelsea getting asked these questions before he had Monica give him oral sex in "our" Whitehouse. Bill was a scoundrel and habitually had "extra maritial" affairs. Shame on you Bill Clinton for putting your daughter through this ordeal. Shame on you Hillary for putting your daughter through this ordeal.

Posted by: Gary | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM

Chelsea's answer def. came across as a snippy, little b*&ch when the kid was asking an honest question about how past scandals might affect the campaign. It was a legitimate question that did not deserve a rude-as-hell reply.

Posted by: Chelsea is gay | March 27, 2008 11:31 AM

I'm a confirmed Republican and a father of three young ladies. I found President Bill Clinton's Oval Office affair with an intern to be repugnant and I was ashamed for our country, and the prospect of Mrs Clinton as President frightens me. That said, it is extremely bad form to ask a question like that to Chelsea. It has no "value" to the consideration of presidential candidates; it serves only to titilate the lowly media.

Posted by: Mike | March 27, 2008 11:43 AM

Chelsea Clinton is nearly 30 years old. She's no longer a teenager growing up in daddy's White House. She a politically active young woman who is actively stumping for her mother.

If she feels that a question about her mother's credibility is off limits, as a private citizen, she certainly is entitled not to respond or lash out. However, she is not a private citizen. She is a public figure involved in the most public of blood sports.

If that's too much for Chelsea, perhaps she should stay home and watch coverage of the campaign from a safe space. Otherwise, grow up and be prepared to confront head on questions about your mothers and/or fathers records and legacies.

As for the press, it's time to "man-up." Ask the questions. Leave the cameras on.

Posted by: clientneyen | March 27, 2008 11:57 AM

if that's the most pressing issue that you would like to discuss with the Clintons, then why don't you go back to watching Jerry Springer and stay away from the electoral process; issues of relevance and manners aside

Posted by: Marina | March 27, 2008 12:37 PM

If Sally Quinn doesn't think the press lies down for anything, where has she been during the Bush press release years?

Of course, there is a special exemption for sex questions, I guess...and Democrats.

Posted by: andanotherthing | March 27, 2008 12:52 PM

If reporters want a story, they need to be respectful of Chelsea Clinton.

Strange, by asking a stupid question on an incident was that completely private affair between a man and a woman, got what he deserved. Why can't anyone get it?

A PRIVATE affair is NOT 'anybody's business'!!!

There are far more important issues to discuss than the Lewinsky affair.

Stick to the issues is my recommendation to all news media.

Olga
Austin, Texas

Posted by: Olga Olivia Pina | March 27, 2008 12:53 PM

A reporter?? An Obama plant?? He was a student, a Clinton supporter, who was trying to help Clinton: Read up people:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - The Butler University student who got a stinging brushback from Chelsea Clinton when he asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal says he's a Clinton supporter.

Evan Strange says he was trying to get Chelsea Clinton to show "what makes Hillary so strong."

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 1:06 PM

At the age of 27, and campaigning for her mother, of course she shouldn't be off limits to any question. Probably not a very nice question, and Chelsea gave a smart-alecky reply, as one would expect from the Clintons.
When the questions get touch, time to lash out at the questioner!!

Posted by: Pat in Idaho | March 27, 2008 1:07 PM

I guess he found out from Chelsea. Hillary is strong alright, strong in lying and she is teaching Chelsea well.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 1:09 PM

Well, there goes another Hillary voter to the Obama side. Just like the one she used in her 3AM red phone commercial, who is an Obama supporter and is making a commercial in support of Obama.

The Clintons are pitiful.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 27, 2008 1:14 PM

So its none of her business if I don't vote for her mother.

Besides didnt her dad say that that is what politics is all about and if you cant take it then ......... So the its all fair game. (or is Chelsea excluded).
The Clinton camp have set those terms - so they play by them/ and be played against them.

I would have respected an answer that said she didn't wish to answer that question as it was too personal. But she chose to be rude to a voter.

Posted by: andj | March 27, 2008 1:29 PM

Also would it be fair to ask her about her Bosnian experience and her mothers lie (lies)

Would that be off limits?

Posted by: andj | March 27, 2008 1:32 PM

And for those who said no.

Then would it be fair or would it be off limits to ask her about her Bosnian experience and her mothers lie (lies)

The character and integrity of candidate is important and needs to be addressed OR not?

Posted by: andj | March 27, 2008 1:36 PM

Chelsea is a grown-up who made the decision to campaign publicly and aggressively for her mother. If she is treated any differently from any other candidate's spokesperson she gets an unfair advantage. The Bill and Hillary duo is tough enough for their opponents without making it a threesome.

Posted by: Sandra Benjamin | March 27, 2008 1:39 PM

No. "...It is extremely bad form to ask a question like that to Chelsea. It has no "value" to the consideration of presidential candidates; it serves only to titilate the lowly media."

The Democratic Party is being ripped apart by media bias. The MEDIA is responsible for the downfall and divide in the Democratic Party. Divided We Fail!

Americans have lost site of what we are trying to do as Americans when we continue to listen to the media. We need to decide without emotional attachments, who will be the best candidate. Each American must take responsibility for his or her choice by collecting relative information allowing for an educated choice. We should not blindly follow any candidate because she or he sounds like what we want to here. We need to research and find out what each candidate is doing to help us with our needs as Americans. What are the real issues?

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 1:46 PM

We believe all Americans should have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations.

Senator Clinton's Response:

Hillary's American Health Choices Plan covers all Americans and improves health care by lowering costs and improving quality... It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs. If you're one of the tens of million Americans without coverage or if you don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans...and that coverage will be affordable...if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.

Affordable: ... The plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs.
Available: ... The insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.
Reliable: It's portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.
(Campaign website, October 4, 2007, http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/)

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 1:47 PM

It's fair to ask her about it...but she didn't answer the correct question. No one cares about the internal problems of her family. What matters is that when confronted with it, Hillary claimed it was a "right-wing conspiracy" aimed at bringing down her husband. Her charge is the real issue that needs to be discussed, not the location of Bill's pants!
Hillary knew of Bill's past affairs. She knew it could be true, yet she attacked the media to divert the attention away from the White House anyway. Good judgment? The truth was going to come out.
Chelsea got away with it by making it look like a personal question. It wasn't. It's a question about the irrational accusation of a woman running for president.

Posted by: Bob | March 27, 2008 1:48 PM

We believe all Americans should have access to affordable health care, including prescription drugs, and these costs should not burden future generations.

Senator Obama's Response:

My plan begins by covering every American. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition. . . . Everyone will be able buy into a new health insurance plan that's similar to the one that every federal employee [has]. If you cannot afford this insurance, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it... If you change jobs, your insurance will go with you. We will make generic drugs more available . . . and will tell the drug companies that their days of forcing affordable prescription drugs out of the market are over.

I have a universal health care plan that will...cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. (Speech in Iowa City, IA, 5/29/07; Speech in Washington, D.C., 6/19/07)

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 1:53 PM

We believe Americans should have choices when it comes to long-term care - allowing them to maintain their independence at home or in their communities with expanded and affordable financing options.

Senator Clinton's Response:

"My mother lives with us as well. And we see it every single day. I was pleased to pass a life span respite act that will begin to provide more support for people who do provide this caregiving. If we were to see our caregivers stop tomorrow and say they could no longer bear the financial, emotional cost of caregiving, that would be a $300 billion cost to replace what is done out of love and out of family and other relationships. So I think it's important that when we have universal healthcare, we know that people will have health care, but we also need to do more for respite care [and] long-term care tax credits..."
(The Democrats on Health Care and Financial Security, AARP-Iowa Public Television forum, Davenport, Iowa, September 20, 2007)

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 1:54 PM

We believe Americans should have choices when it comes to long-term care - allowing them to maintain their independence at home or in their communities with expanded and affordable financing options.

Senator Obama's Response:

The long-term care system is heavily biased towards institutional care-even though most would rather remain at home-and the quality of care is often poor. Long-term care is very expensive, and Medicare coverage is limited, making catastrophic expenses routine.

Barack Obama will work to give seniors choices about their care. He will honor and support the family members who take care of their elders. He will work to reform the financing of long term care to protect seniors and families from impoverishment.

He will improve the quality of elder care by giving our long-term care workforce the support it deserves, training more health care workers in geriatrics, and researching better ways to manage pain.
(Campaign website, http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/seniorsFactSheet.pdf)

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 1:56 PM

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR FOR AN OBAMYOPIC REPORTER TO ASK AN IRRELEVANT TABLOID PAPER QUESTION THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN ISSUES.

UNLESS OBAMYOPIA IS NOW TRYING HIS DIRTY TRICKS TO DO WHAT JESSE JACKSON JR. (his Campaign Chair back in Iowa!) SUGGESTED HE SHOULD DO: LIKE O.J. SIMPSON, "IT'S A NATURAL TO KNOCK THE WHITE WOMAN DOWN?!! IT'S CAPTURED FOR POSTERITY ON VIDEO!!!

THIS CRUEL, SEXIST, RACIST SUGGESTION WAS MADE BY JESSE BACK IN IOWA and HE ADDED: HOW ATTRACTIVE WOULD IT BE FOR A BLACK MAN LIKE OBAMA TO KNOCK DOWN A WHITE WOMAN, YOU KNOW,LIKE O.J.INCREDIBLE---BUT THE OBAMYOPIA CAMPAIGN IS CAPABLE OF ANYTHING...HOW ABOUT LETTING FLORIDIANS AND MICHIGANERS VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY, DICTATOR OBAMYOPIA!!

What a gentleman...at least he didn't take his Co-Chair Jackson's suggestion but it looks as if he's doing it behind the scenes....Can you impage Jesse Jackson Jr. to even suggest whether it's "a Natural, after O.J. fashion" to "knock a White woman down!.."..ongratulations Your Hopeness!! Great Judgment..Good thing you missed last Sunday's Sermon...that was another Expedient Political Judgment on Your Part!

Posted by: pat | March 27, 2008 1:57 PM

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR FOR AN OBAMYOPIC REPORTER TO ASK AN IRRELEVANT TABLOID PAPER QUESTION THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN ISSUES.

UNLESS OBAMYOPIA IS NOW TRYING HIS DIRTY TRICKS TO DO WHAT JESSE JACKSON JR. (his Campaign Chair back in Iowa!) SUGGESTED HE SHOULD DO: LIKE O.J. SIMPSON, "IT'S A NATURAL TO KNOCK THE WHITE WOMAN DOWN?!! IT'S CAPTURED FOR POSTERITY ON VIDEO!!!

THIS CRUEL, SEXIST, RACIST SUGGESTION WAS MADE BY JESSE BACK IN IOWA and HE ADDED: HOW ATTRACTIVE WOULD IT BE FOR A BLACK MAN LIKE OBAMA TO KNOCK DOWN A WHITE WOMAN, YOU KNOW,LIKE O.J.INCREDIBLE---BUT THE OBAMYOPIA CAMPAIGN IS CAPABLE OF ANYTHING...HOW ABOUT LETTING FLORIDIANS AND MICHIGANERS VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY, DICTATOR OBAMYOPIA!!

What a gentleman...at least he didn't take his Co-Chair Jackson's suggestion but it looks as if he's doing it behind the scenes....Can you impage Jesse Jackson Jr. to even suggest whether it's "a Natural, after O.J. fashion" to "knock a White woman down!.."..ongratulations Your Hopeness!! Great Judgment..Good thing you missed last Sunday's Sermon...that was another Expedient Political Judgment on Your Part!

Posted by: pat | March 27, 2008 1:57 PM

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR FOR AN OBAMYOPIC REPORTER TO ASK AN IRRELEVANT TABLOID PAPER QUESTION THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN ISSUES.

UNLESS OBAMYOPIA IS NOW TRYING HIS DIRTY TRICKS TO DO WHAT JESSE JACKSON JR. (his Campaign Chair back in Iowa!) SUGGESTED HE SHOULD DO: LIKE O.J. SIMPSON, "IT'S A NATURAL TO KNOCK THE WHITE WOMAN DOWN?!! IT'S CAPTURED FOR POSTERITY ON VIDEO!!!

THIS CRUEL, SEXIST, RACIST SUGGESTION WAS MADE BY JESSE BACK IN IOWA and HE ADDED: HOW ATTRACTIVE WOULD IT BE FOR A BLACK MAN LIKE OBAMA TO KNOCK DOWN A WHITE WOMAN, YOU KNOW,LIKE O.J.INCREDIBLE---BUT THE OBAMYOPIA CAMPAIGN IS CAPABLE OF ANYTHING...HOW ABOUT LETTING FLORIDIANS AND MICHIGANERS VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY, DICTATOR OBAMYOPIA!!

What a gentleman...at least he didn't take his Co-Chair Jackson's suggestion but it looks as if he's doing it behind the scenes....Can you impage Jesse Jackson Jr. to even suggest whether it's "a Natural, after O.J. fashion" to "knock a White woman down!.."..ongratulations Your Hopeness!! Great Judgment..Good thing you missed last Sunday's Sermon...that was another Expedient Political Judgment on Your Part!

Posted by: pat | March 27, 2008 1:57 PM

We believe our children and grandchildren should have an adequate quality of life when they retire. Social Security must be strengthened without burdening future generations.

Senator Clinton's Response:

"With respect to Social Security, I have a plan. It's called start with fiscal responsibility. That's what we were doing in the 1990s, and we had Social Security on a much better path than it is today because of the irresponsible spending policies of George Bush and the Republican Congress. If there are some of the long-term challenges that we need to address, let's do it in the context of having fiscal responsibility, and then let's put together a bipartisan commission and look at how we're going to deal with these long-term challenges. I am not going to balance Social Security on the backs of seniors and hardworking middle-class Americans."
(MSNBC Debate, October 30, 2007) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21562193/

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 1:58 PM

We believe our children and grandchildren should have an adequate quality of life when they retire. Social Security must be strengthened without burdening future generations

Senator Obama's Response:

"First, I believe privatization is dangerous (because it subjects) a secure retirement to the whims of the market. . . .

"Second, we don't need to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. There are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve forcing seniors to bear a heavier burden.

"The best option. . . is to ask the highest income Americans to contribute a little more by raising the ceiling that's currently put on the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax. . . .

"Over the long term, we need to stop borrowing billions from the Social Security trust fund. That's why I'll stand for a return to fiscal responsibility as president." (Speech in Cedar Rapids 10/29/2007)

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 2:01 PM

We believe workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans, and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age.

Senator Clinton's Response:

"I'm announcing my plan today to provide every single American with an easy, automatic opportunity to save for future through an account I'm calling an American Retirement Account. These accounts will take the best of the 401(k) plans and make them available to every working family...To give a strong incentive for saving, my plan will offer working and middle-class families generous matching tax cuts. For families making up to $60,000 a year, the government will match dollar for dollar the first $1,000 you save. For families making between $60,000 and $100,000, the plan will provide a 50 percent match...That means tens of millions of middle-class families will be eligible for matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1,000 to help them build a nest egg."
(Campaign website, October 9, 2007, http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3640)

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 2:03 PM

We believe workers should be provided with financial incentives to save, should have access to effective retirement plans, and should be able to keep working and contributing to society regardless of age.

Senator Obama's Response:

Secure Hard-Earned Pensions: Obama will insist that companies keep the promises they make to employees. Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less Than $50,000: For many seniors, this will eliminate the need to file taxes...Obama supports automatic enrollment in IRAs and improving the Saver's Tax Credit so more households can save for retirement...Expand programs like Senior Corps to provide more volunteer opportunities for older Americans to serve...Some employers refuse to hire older workers or push them to retire. Obama supports fighting job discrimination for aging employees. He supports strengthening the Age Discrimination in Employment Act...
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/seniors/
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/21/obama_..._t.php
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/seniorsFactSheet.pdf

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 2:05 PM

We believe Americans of all ages should have access to tools to help manage their finances, and save for the future and better, easy to understand information to help them increase their financial literacy and manage their money wisely.

Senator Clinton's Response:

"The New Savers Act lays out a series of practical and relatively low cost steps we can implement to help Americans start saving more and create wealth for their kid's education, for the purchase of a home and for their retirement," said Senator Clinton. The Secretaries of the Treasury Department and the Department of Health and Human Services are instructed to undertake a number of programs and strategies to promote access to wealth building financial services. Efforts will focus on encouraging the use of electronic payments, linking benefits cards to savings products, and providing the resources, incentives, training and assistance to connect individuals to a variety of wealth building financial products and services.
(Senate website, August 6, 2007, http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=280606

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 2:06 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Why are people on this blog not answering the question, instead of working for Obama to dispel doubts as to his poor judgement and lack of weighty resume:

NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!

I would strongly recommend to Mr. Obama that he CHANGE HIS CHURCH AFFILIATION to a normal one, not a pseudo-theological excuse for Marxist/Racist/Sexist rhetoric! Why didn't he give his Healing Speech to his Uncle Jeremia 20 years ago? Why do the Speech 20 years later to ensure his Political Survival!?

If they nominate Obama, he's definitely LOSING THE ELECTION. Don't they see it.
It was Howard Dean, Chairman of Democratic National who said this of Hillary Clinton's abilities:

"I think that Hillary Clinton will be a good President"--Does Dean remember his statement?? He should. Now's the time for the Democrats to save this election, while there's still time to reject Obama's hypocricy, his racism and his sexism, the obnoxious tactics of his techie-campaign, and and his rhetorical fluff masquerading as "presidential ability"...Obama, no sir, YOU AIN'T JACK KENNEDY! Go back, learn to change your political diapers, change your "church" affiliation, and see you in 20 years--in Hawaii!

Posted by: Rod.B2 | March 27, 2008 2:07 PM

We believe Americans of all ages should have access to tools to help manage their finances, and save for the future and better, easy to understand information to help them increase their financial literacy and manage their money wisely.

Senator Obama's Response:

Obama has introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to provide the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increase funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, create new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and require industry insiders to report suspicious activity. Barack Obama will enact laws to ensure that all prospective homebuyers have access to accurate and complete information about their mortgage options. Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will ... allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.
(Campaign website, November 1, 2007) http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SubprimeFactSheet.pdf

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 2:08 PM

I've done my homework and presented the facts without emotional ties to either candidate. We cannot, now more than ever, afford to pick our Presidential Candidate by deciding how someone us feel.

I challenge all Americans to do the same.

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 2:16 PM

I've done my homework and presented the facts without emotional ties to either candidate. We cannot, now more than ever, afford to pick our Presidential Candidate by deciding how someone makes us feel.

I challenge all Americans to do the same.

Posted by: di54 | March 27, 2008 2:17 PM

she isn't the ex-president child here......she is on the campaign trail.....questions like that should be fair game.....if you can't take the heat then stay out the kitchen.....

Posted by: Change 08 | March 27, 2008 2:17 PM

Of course it was a fair question, the irony is that the guy that asked the question supports Hillary for pres. That was a typical Clinton response to a tough question you simply tuck your tail and go the opposite direction. Chelsea is putting herself out there and her mothers credibility was in question. Could have been a lot of ways to answer that but she whiffed. If she is afraid to answer tough questions then she should get off the campaign trail or else grow a spine. She's not a kid anymore she is a grown adult and too many of these posters are acting as if she's still a teenager. If she were then it wouldn't be a fair question

Posted by: Joe | March 27, 2008 2:33 PM

Chelsea was asked a straight question and she gave a straight answer. What's the problem here? It seems to me there are a lot of insecure people here who don't mind asking a rude question, but then don't have the maturity to take a direct answer. It appears it's not the answer that is faulty, rather the listener's immaturity and inability to move on - as Chelsea did to the next question.

Posted by: Celia | March 27, 2008 2:58 PM

Of course it's fair. She's 21 with a microphone in her hand exercising her right to free speech. It's fair to exercise free speech back to her. She's not a wounded lamb, that's about to get ripped apart by the wolves. She knows what she's doing, that's why she refuses to answer reporters questions. She's also right to refuse to answer, that doesn't mean she can't be asked again how her father soiled the blue dress and the nation.

Posted by: richardch_2 | March 27, 2008 3:11 PM

I don't think the scandal itself has weakened Hillary Clinton campaign but, their low lifed tactics they have used to win has. Hillary says she would not want The Rev. Jeremiah Wright for a pastor, well I would not want her for a mother or Bill Clinton for a father, he held the highest position in the world, and used it to ruin a young aspiring interns life and had several other affairs -and he wants to get back in the White House, I don't think so, taxpayers of all parties has gotten a chance to see them for what they really are LIARS. Hillary's personal choice to stay with Bill is no different than OBama's personal choice not to denounce a man he thinks as uncle, you do not have to be biological related to feel a strong bond with someone, he loves his Pastor and that is one of the greatest Ten Commandments in the bible is to love one another, Obama nor his Pastor/uncle is racist they both have the same message LOVE

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 3:13 PM

I don't think the scandal itself has weakened Hillary Clinton campaign but, their low lifed tactics they have used to win has. Hillary says she would not want The Rev. Jeremiah Wright for a pastor, well I would not want her for a mother or Bill Clinton for a father, he held the highest position in the world, and used it to ruin a young aspiring interns life and had several other affairs -and he wants to get back in the White House, I don't think so, taxpayers of all parties has gotten a chance to see them for what they really are LIARS. Hillary's personal choice to stay with Bill is no different than OBama's personal choice not to denounce a man he thinks as uncle, you do not have to be biological related to feel a strong bond with someone, he loves his Pastor and that is one of the greatest Ten Commandments in the bible is to love one another, Obama nor his Pastor/uncle is racist they both have the same message LOVE

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 3:13 PM

I don't think the scandal itself has weakened Hillary Clinton campaign but, their low lifed tactics they have used to win has. Hillary says she would not want The Rev. Jeremiah Wright for a pastor, well I would not want her for a mother or Bill Clinton for a father, he held the highest position in the world, and used it to ruin a young aspiring interns life and had several other affairs -and he wants to get back in the White House, I don't think so, taxpayers of all parties has gotten a chance to see them for what they really are LIARS. Hillary's personal choice to stay with Bill is no different than OBama's personal choice not to denounce a man he thinks as uncle, you do not have to be biological related to feel a strong bond with someone, he loves his Pastor and that is one of the greatest Ten Commandments in the bible is to love one another, Obama nor his Pastor/uncle is racist they both have the same message LOVE

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 3:13 PM

I don't think the scandal itself has weakened Hillary Clinton campaign but, their low lifed tactics they have used to win has. Hillary says she would not want The Rev. Jeremiah Wright for a pastor, well I would not want her for a mother or Bill Clinton for a father, he held the highest position in the world, and used it to ruin a young aspiring interns life and had several other affairs -and he wants to get back in the White House, I don't think so, taxpayers of all parties has gotten a chance to see them for what they really are LIARS. Hillary's personal choice to stay with Bill is no different than OBama's personal choice not to denounce a man he thinks as uncle, you do not have to be biological related to feel a strong bond with someone, he loves his Pastor and that is one of the greatest Ten Commandments in the bible is to love one another, Obama nor his Pastor/uncle is racist they both have the same message LOVE

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 3:15 PM

Yes, is is absolutely fair for Chelsea to be asked this question and yet, completely up to her as to how she decides to answer it. I believe she did so with grace and it was a fair response. Technically not our business but this is to be expected with high profile people -- of course it is going to come up.

I have respect for Chelsea, am losing respect for Hillary... Barack Obama all the way!

Posted by: Rachel Wagabaza | March 27, 2008 3:29 PM

come on people, Hillary can't run her own household, How is she ever going to run a Country?

P.S. Bill, Ms. Lewinsky called she wants her gown back.

Posted by: Monika | March 27, 2008 3:32 PM

come on people, Hillary can't run her own household, How is she ever going to run a Country?

P.S. Bill, Ms. Lewinsky called she wants her gown back.

Posted by: Monika | March 27, 2008 3:33 PM

I think Chelsea was certainly within her rights to choose not to answer this question and it obviously caught her completely off-guard. Her parents have always held a "hands off" policy with regard to Chelsea and the press has respected their wishes. I do think someone actively campaigning and speaking on behalf of any candidate should not be off limits. Chelsea is an intelligent young lady and should be able to handle whatever comes her way. Personally, if this question would have come to ME, I would have said that it is between my parents and is an issue I don't discuss. This campaign is about my Mother, what qualifies her to be the next President and I believe the way she personally handled this shows the level of commitment and loyalty she has, and further shows that she can work through the most devastating of issues and bring them to a successful conclusion. That would have been my answer.

Posted by: Carmen | March 27, 2008 3:33 PM

I see McCain's mother on the stump all the time and while I'm sure it would be an interesting sound bite to hear her opinion about the Republican nominee cheating on wife #1 with wife #2, I don't think it's necessary. Who are all these people who blame the Clintons for staying married after bouts of infidelity? What's the big deal about opting not to divorce? All this B.S. about what Chelsea signed up for when she decided to stump for her mom is just that. It is beyond irrelevant. It's cruel.

Posted by: Texas Tommy | March 27, 2008 3:35 PM

I really am sad about where this country is going and how the Clintons planted the seed for our valuing image over reality. Chelsea may sound indiginant and her comment would make it appear she was, but notice her head shake at the end? as if saying "yes", she seems actually in both her body posture and her tone to be quite smug and almost peacock glad to get a chance to fire back. Notice her walk around the stage--nearly Liza like w/ her subtle swing of the microphone. Please then watch any video of Hilary answering a real question (Do you agree with giving illegal aliens drivers licenses?, for example) if not standing behind a podium, she does the same thing. Regardless, she nods her head, while obsfucating the issue by playing the victim: "This is where you all play gotcha" was her response to this legit question while she nodded her head--as if to say, "see I am playing ball, even though I am the victim. I am reasonable. I am capable of hearing this question. But I do not have to answer it."

Also, if you guys, anyone left or right, interested in politics wants to know who and what has really been running our country (blind, ego driven greed) please read Peggy Noonan's The Case Against Hillary Clinton. It is enlightening as it is depressing.

Posted by: sadly enlightened now | March 27, 2008 3:56 PM

The question should never have been asked to Bill and it certainly should never be asked to Chelsea. It's in poor taste to bring up something so personal and something that has obviously affected her so profoundly then ask her to put a positive spin on it.

Shame on everyone who feels it's just politics as usual to tear into the turmoil that this young woman faced.

Posted by: FSUguy | March 27, 2008 3:58 PM

Peggy Noonan's "The Case Against Hillary" is a worthy read you say, "sadly enlightened now"?

Say goodbye to your ability to pick non-fiction and to your credibility all together. Idiot.

Posted by: FSUguy | March 27, 2008 4:00 PM

No. No one has the right to ask that question to Chelsea to begin with! The student who asked Chelsea the question about Lewisnsky in public is insensitive, foolish and malicious. I don't think this guy has any right to think himself to be such an innocent person. Audaciously, he knew this horrible question would put him on the news, he's a SNEAKY BAD PERSON!

Posted by: Jinn | March 27, 2008 4:01 PM

I THINK MEN ARE TRULY TERRIFIED BY THE PROSPECT OF HAVING A WOMAN (ANY WOMAN) AS PRESIDENT. PERIOD.

Posted by: deor | March 27, 2008 4:15 PM

Fair question - but we have a right to ask - i.e. it is our busness - and you have a right not to answer. But don't tell us it's not our business. This is the big time girl!!

Would have been better that she said "that was a painful time but......we are here now!!!"

I think all the Clinton's wear the same colors though...deflection, lies, indignation, victimisation, self-delusion, entitlement.

As someone asked earlier (in different words) why would we put someone who is so involved with an impeached president and perjurer - and who is so suspect in terms of her honesty and character - in charge of this country. Have we not learned anything?

Posted by: Patrick | March 27, 2008 4:31 PM

Hmmm. Did Rod.b2 forget to take his medications?

Posted by: Patrick | March 27, 2008 4:43 PM

FSU Guy. Apparently we disagree on non-fiction choices. I assume that you too have read the book and we can have a logical discussion about its merits without resorting to logical fallacies, such as Ad Hominum attacks-- calling someone an "idiot" for their choice of reading is a way to escape the real issue. The real issues I brought up, that you did not address, are how both Clinton women seem very adept at spinning an answer so as to put themselves in both the champion and the victim light--they do this with the dissonance between their body language and with what they are actually saying. Now, if you would like to address that rather than fall into logical fallacy, I would be happy to do so. Also, perhaps we could start a non-fiction book club and you could discuss Noonan's creditability issues with me so as to further enlighten me. Otherwise, I will see your reaction as simply a projection of your own intelligence and a refusal to comply with this blog's policy against personal attacks. Actually, with her latest fabrications, you don't even need to read the book and her disastrous Hillarycare plan that included a 1400 page document that all sectors of the health care field found abhorrent along with her refusal to compromise on a second health care bill suggested. Neither do you need to read about her involvement, sorry spearheading, of the travelgate scandal, nor all the other "friends" she apparently ruined when they became "disloyal". No, you're right. You don't even need to read the book to get depressed about Hillary. Just watch any recent video of her bullet dodging fantastical Matrix like near escape when she landed w/ Chealsea in Bosnia. Oh wait, that was just fantasy, like the Matrix. I saw another video of her casually, triumphantly waving and slowly walking w/ daughter in tow to hug a child. Aawww. Cute but not as heroic, I guess. Or how about, much worse than this, her recent admittance that she would "go after" peoples' "wages" if they refused to submit to her health care plan. You might want to also search for her under "Peter Paul" a man she said she didn't know whom she then sent a letter asking for 100,000 dollar contribution (after he had already helped her gain millions.) Was nice of her to leave a voice mail thanking him even though she did not know him. Maybe he's in the Hillatrix movie too.
Thanks

Posted by: sadly enlightened now | March 27, 2008 4:58 PM

The willful ignorance of the Clintonistas never ceases to amaze me. The kid who questioned Chelsea wasn't an Obama plant - he's a Clinton supporter - http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/chelsea_questioner_it_needs_to.html

He did it with the best of intentions and was more than a little blown away by the way she responded - to the point he's questioning whether he's supporting the right candidate.

I'd suggest taking a few deep breaths and Googling before you post your well-uninformed conspiracy theories (but they're not theories when you KNOW they're TRUE!!!!); it just makes you look lame.

Posted by: jk5432 | March 27, 2008 5:05 PM

Sadly enlightened now - I am shocked that you don't know that the term "sniper fire" is Democrat slang for "somewhat lackluster welcome that does not include champagne and caviar on the tarmac." "Duck and Run" is Democrat slang for "where's the brass band?" As usual, it is not Hillary's fault that you are playing "gotcha". I agree with FSUguy's general theme - books are stupid and name calling is cool.

Posted by: darth conservatus | March 27, 2008 5:10 PM

Qupte: "NO, IT'S NOT FAIR THAT CLINTON'S DAUGHTER SHOULD BE ASKED THIS STUPID REPORTER BY AN EQUALLY STUPID REPORTER!"

So much for the intelligence of the Clinton supporters. It has been reported again and again that this was a student supporter of Clinton. It's on this board several times. Read or google, if you can.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 5:30 PM

Again for the unenlightened Clinton supporters:

NDIANAPOLIS (AP) - The Butler University student who got a stinging brushback from Chelsea Clinton when he asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal says he's a Clinton supporter.

Evan Strange says he was trying to get Chelsea Clinton to show "what makes Hillary so strong."

Chelsea Clinton responded to the question during a campus appearance in Indianapolis Tuesday by saying it was none of his business.

Strange told CBS's "The Early Show" Wednesday morning that he asked the question because his friends are always bringing up the scandal. He said that by brushing him off, Chelsea Clinton missed an opportunity to show her mother's strength.

He said he was very surprised by the rebuke.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 5:33 PM

Why not ask about that incident? Hillary claimed it was all a vast right wing conspiracy, and not a plain old fashioned BJ.
In addition, why is everyone so bent out of shape because of the latest Hillary lie about her trip to Bosnia?
Both she and her husband have an unblemished record of lying for the past twenty years.

Posted by: joel714 | March 27, 2008 5:43 PM

How is it "none of our business" that somebody who wants to be president, is lacking in credibility ?

Chelsea's response would have been appropriate if she was asked about her personal feelings during the Lewinsky scandal, or about intrafamily dynamics during that time.

But the candidate's credibility is certainly fair game, and Chelsea's answer was cowardly and disingenuous.

If poor little Chelsea can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: Ted | March 27, 2008 5:54 PM

Anyone who needs to ask a question like this has no credibility.
If anything, Hilary is stronger because of the Monica scandal.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 6:25 PM

Chelsea is just as fake as the other Clinton's they have no sense of reality, and are all about themselves. I've seen a lot of posts saying well she did answer the question. "None of you business" is not an answer. Grow up people she's not a little kid and it wasn't personal question. It was public news. When you decide to be large in the public eye you have to expect some tough questions that normal everyday people wouldn't be expected to answer. The entire Clinton family is very weak and just pass the buck everytime something tough comes their way. They have no back bones. I am not a republican by the way I'm a realist

Posted by: Joe | March 27, 2008 6:53 PM

Yes it was fair to ask that questions. She is asking for far more trust than the Clinton's have given the American people. She is asking you to vote for her mother. Why not ask her about their principles.

Her father was impeached. It surely has an impact on a family for his infidelity.

Posted by: Emck | March 27, 2008 7:10 PM

Yes it was fair to ask that questions. She is asking for far more trust than the Clinton's have given the American people. She is asking you to vote for her mother. Why not ask her about their principles.

Her father was impeached. It surely has an impact on a family for his infidelity.

Posted by: Emck | March 27, 2008 7:10 PM

Hillary Clinton displayed her lack of judgement then by making what we all know now to be false claims about a vast right wing conspiracy concerning her husband's adultery. She was the one who made her husband's adultery political. She for whatever reasons has decided to enter her daughter into the political arena. She made Chelsea political. Asking Chelsea whom her mother politisized about her mothers claims regarding her father's adultery which Hillary also politisized is completely legitimate. Had Hillary chosen not to have politisized her husband's adultery or her daughter and or kept one or both completely private, the twain would never have met. That both were politisized it is completely legitimate to ask and frankly the questioner should have demanded a better answer as it was Hillary Clinton herself that made both subjects public and political.

Posted by: Magarete Chaparral | March 27, 2008 8:19 PM

Since when is there fair game in politics? Chelsea is bold enough and old enough to participate in the presidential campaign...As such, she should be prepared to be confronted with all types of questions, whether she likes them or not. Does she have to answer every question? No. It's her choice as to whether or not she answers a question. And, she'll reap the benefits or consequences of her choices. That's just life. Now, did her reluctance to directly answer the question change my opinion of her, her mother or her parents...no. Nor did it change my opinion of the Obamas or the McCains...

Posted by: Choice | March 27, 2008 9:39 PM

Since when is there fair game in politics? Chelsea is bold enough and old enough to participate in the presidential campaign. She should, therefore, be prepared to be confronted with all types of questions whether she likes them or not. Does she have to answer every question? No. She has every right to choose not to answer all questions asked. Now, did her answer (or failure to answer) change my opinion of her, her mother as a presidential candidate or her parents in general? No. Did it change my opinion of the Obamas or the McCains? No. And it certainly was not importance enough to change my mind about whom I will vote for.

Posted by: Choice | March 27, 2008 9:48 PM

Since when is there fair game in politics? Chelsea is bold enough and old enough to participate in the presidential campaign. She should, therefore, be prepared to be confronted with all types of questions whether she likes them or not. Does she have to answer every question? No. She has every right to choose not to answer all questions asked. Now, did her answer (or failure to answer) change my opinion of her, her mother as a presidential candidate or her parents in general? No. Did it change my opinion of the Obamas or the McCains? No. And it certainly was not important enough to change my mind about whom I will vote for.

Posted by: Choice | March 27, 2008 9:53 PM

WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's positive rating has dropped to a new low of 37 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, the New York senator's positive rating slid 8 percentage points in two weeks and she had a negative rating of 48 percent in a week where she admitted making a mistake in claiming she had come under sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia.


In head-to-head matchups, Obama and Clinton were even at 45 percent. In general election matchups, Obama led McCain by 44 percent to 42 percent and McCain led Clinton by 46 percent to 44 percent.

When asked which candidate could unite the country if elected, 60 percent said Obama, 58 percent said McCain and 46 percent said Clinton.

The poll of 700 registered voters was conducted on Monday and Tuesday and had a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 10:14 PM

Chelsea should be treated like anybody else campaigning for a candidate. I don't really understand why the press allows her to be off-limits. She's not a young child anymore, and if she doesn't want difficult questions or press coverage, she needs to stop campaigning in front of an audience.

Posted by: Judy | March 27, 2008 10:24 PM

A kid of a parent deserves her privacy. She isn't responsible for bills actions. but on the other hand, if she is campaining for her mother, she may as well be prepared to aswer those questions or don't campain!! GO CLINTON!!! YEY!!!!! Well, people say that clinton can't possible win mathmatically. but neither can obama!!! yey!!! GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!v

Posted by: why do you care???? | March 27, 2008 11:11 PM

A kid of a parent deserves her privacy. She isn't responsible for bills actions. but on the other hand, if she is campaining for her mother, she may as well be prepared to aswer those questions or don't campain!! GO CLINTON!!! YEY!!!!! Well, people say that clinton can't possible win mathmatically. but neither can obama!!! yey!!! GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!GO CLINTON!!!v

Posted by: why do you care???? | March 27, 2008 11:11 PM

what the hek is wrong with that person??

Posted by: hihi | March 27, 2008 11:12 PM

what the hek is wrong with that person??

Posted by: hihi | March 27, 2008 11:12 PM

Would Obama want to be asked if he thinks his mother was promiscuous because she had children from different fathers? Same thing!

That student was not a Hillary Supporter. And if he really is a supporter, I must believe he is a retard. Who needs these type of supporters. He can go support Obama and then ask him about his mother.

Posted by: Gloria Rodriguez | March 27, 2008 11:44 PM

Sally Quinn, are you stupid or something? Hear the question! The student asked "do you think your mother's credibility will be hurt due to Lewinsky's scandal?" If people are so ignorant that they are going to hold it against Hillary about her husband's behavior and disregard her experience and qualification then they do not need to be voting. Bill is not running for President! It is Hillary his wife. And I agree with Chelsea it is none of your business or anyone's business. Why don't people get a life and stop meddling in to people's personal business!!

Posted by: Linda | March 28, 2008 12:03 AM

Someone said, " Monica Lewinsky will not be voting for Hillary since the Democrats have left a bad taste in her mouth ".

Posted by: argo | March 28, 2008 12:11 AM

Mr. Strange, why do you not ask Obama about his promiscuous mother?

What is good for the goose, good for the gander!

Posted by: Amy | March 28, 2008 12:39 AM

Evan Strange can ask any question he wants to, but Chelsea has the right to answer, "No comment," "None of your business,"or even "Take your question and shove it." She can even just nod and ask, "Any other questions?"

Was the question fair? IOnly if you're an Obama supporter. Fair or not, the question was completely irrelevant. Does any body think for a nano second that Chelsea would say that her mother's credibility was damaged? Or that she would criticize her in any way? Besides, how is Hillary's credibility involved?
It isn't the question that disturbs me; It is the vile comments from people hiding behind their computer screens that disturbs me. The immunity from scrutiny emboldens too many websurfers to employ invective and vituperation, to slander, to accuse without any basis and to engage in character assassination...and all without having to answer for their venomous attacks.

Road rage is as nothing compared with computer rage. Scrooge was a warm-hearted kindly old gent by blog surfer standards. The norm for them is flinty disdain, lack of compassion and unfettered malevolence. They stimulate each other into writing hyperbolic rants. Ã…ll in all they are like the fans at some English rugby matches...completely out of control and gleefully reveling int their uncontrolled hate speech.

Posted by: cynicalismo | March 28, 2008 12:40 AM

Evan Strange can ask any question he wants to, but Chelsea has the right to answer, "No comment," "None of your business,"or even "Take your question and shove it." She can even just nod and ask, "Any other questions?"

Was the question fair? IOnly if you're an Obama supporter. Fair or not, the question was completely irrelevant. Does any body think for a nano second that Chelsea would say that her mother's credibility was damaged? Or that she would criticize her in any way? Besides, how is Hillary's credibility involved?
It isn't the question that disturbs me; It is the vile comments from people hiding behind their computer screens that disturbs me. The immunity from scrutiny emboldens too many websurfers to employ invective and vituperation, to slander, to accuse without any basis and to engage in character assassination...and all without having to answer for their venomous attacks.

Road rage is as nothing compared with computer rage. Scrooge was a warm-hearted kindly old gent by blog surfer standards. The norm for them is flinty disdain, lack of compassion and unfettered malevolence. They stimulate each other into writing hyperbolic rants. Ã…ll in all they are like the fans at some English rugby matches...completely out of control and gleefully reveling int their uncontrolled hate speech.

Posted by: cynicalismo | March 28, 2008 12:41 AM

Evan Strange can ask any question he wants to, but Chelsea has the right to answer, "No comment," "None of your business,"or even "Take your question and shove it." She can even just nod and ask, "Any other questions?"

Was the question fair? IOnly if you're an Obama supporter. Fair or not, the question was completely irrelevant. Does any body think for a nano second that Chelsea would say that her mother's credibility was damaged? Or that she would criticize her in any way? Besides, how is Hillary's credibility involved?
It isn't the question that disturbs me; It is the vile comments from people hiding behind their computer screens that disturbs me. The immunity from scrutiny emboldens too many websurfers to employ invective and vituperation, to slander, to accuse without any basis and to engage in character assassination...and all without having to answer for their venomous attacks.

Road rage is as nothing compared with computer rage. Scrooge was a warm-hearted kindly old gent by blog surfer standards. The norm for them is flinty disdain, lack of compassion and unfettered malevolence. They stimulate each other into writing hyperbolic rants. Ã…ll in all they are like the fans at some English rugby matches...completely out of control and gleefully reveling int their uncontrolled hate speech.

Posted by: cynicalismo | March 28, 2008 12:41 AM

Evan Strange can ask any question he wants to, but Chelsea has the right to answer, "No comment," "None of your business,"or even "Take your question and shove it." She can even just nod and ask, "Any other questions?"

Was the question fair? IOnly if you're an Obama supporter. Fair or not, the question was completely irrelevant. Does any body think for a nano second that Chelsea would say that her mother's credibility was damaged? Or that she would criticize her in any way? Besides, how is Hillary's credibility involved?
It isn't the question that disturbs me; It is the vile comments from people hiding behind their computer screens that disturbs me. The immunity from scrutiny emboldens too many websurfers to employ invective and vituperation, to slander, to accuse without any basis and to engage in character assassination...and all without having to answer for their venomous attacks.

Road rage is as nothing compared with computer rage. Scrooge was a warm-hearted kindly old gent by blog surfer standards. The norm for them is flinty disdain, lack of compassion and unfettered malevolence. They stimulate each other into writing hyperbolic rants. Ã…ll in all they are like the fans at some English rugby matches...completely out of control and gleefully reveling int their uncontrolled hate speech.

Posted by: cynicalismo | March 28, 2008 12:41 AM

Evan Strange can ask any question he wants to, but Chelsea has the right to answer, "No comment," "None of your business,"or even "Take your question and shove it." She can even just nod and ask, "Any other questions?"

Was the question fair? IOnly if you're an Obama supporter. Fair or not, the question was completely irrelevant. Does any body think for a nano second that Chelsea would say that her mother's credibility was damaged? Or that she would criticize her in any way? Besides, how is Hillary's credibility involved?
It isn't the question that disturbs me; It is the vile comments from people hiding behind their computer screens that disturbs me. The immunity from scrutiny emboldens too many websurfers to employ invective and vituperation, to slander, to accuse without any basis and to engage in character assassination...and all without having to answer for their venomous attacks.

Road rage is as nothing compared with computer rage. Scrooge was a warm-hearted kindly old gent by blog surfer standards. The norm for them is flinty disdain, lack of compassion and unfettered malevolence. They stimulate each other into writing hyperbolic rants. Ã…ll in all they are like the fans at some English rugby matches...completely out of control and gleefully reveling int their uncontrolled hate speech.

Posted by: cynicalismo | March 28, 2008 12:41 AM

Yeah, ask Obama about his Mama!

Is it true she was promiscuous and she liked the taste of Black man?

Posted by: JenL | March 28, 2008 12:50 AM

Obama Copies Hillary's 'Second Stimulus'
Last Thursday, Senator Clinton called for a "second stimulus package" with $30 billion to help states and localities fight foreclosures. One week later, Senator Obama announced a "second $30 billion stimulus package".

Clinton policy director Neera Tanden: "If Senator Obama has to copy policy ideas when he's a candidate on the campaign trail, how is he going to solve people's problems if he's president? When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership."

1) Hillary called for a $30 billion fund to help states and localities to fight foreclosure in their communities. [Clinton Campaign Press Release,3/20/08]

One week later, Barack Obama called for an economic stimulus package of $30 billion to provide 'immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis.'[Reuters, 3/27/08]

2) Hillary's plan introduces idea of 'second stimulus.' "That is why Senator Clinton is calling on Congress and the President to pass a second stimulus package. This time around, the primary focus should be on addressing the growing housing crisis. And by investing new, temporary resources in a housing-focused stimulus package, we can avoid the worst fall-out from the current downturn, keep families in their homes and stabilize communities." [Clinton Campaign Press Release, 3/20/08]

Obama's plan uses the exact same language: 'Enact a Second $30 Billion Stimulus Package to Address the Mortgage Crisis, Protect Vulnerable Families and Strengthen the Economy.' [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets ,3/27/08]

3) Hillary's plan reiterated her support for increasing unemployment insurance: "While this second stimulus package should focus predominantly on the housing crisis, Congress should also consider temporary measures to help struggling workers like extending unemployment insurance." [Clinton Campaign Press Release ,3/20/08]

Obama's plan includes the same call for increasing unemployment insurance: "Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment." [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets,3/27/08]
Latests Releasesmore »
The Obama Record: Just Words
3/27/2008
Statement from Hillary Clinton on Bush's Pursuit of a "Long-Term Strategic Partnership" with the Iraqi Government
3/27/2008
Obama Copies Hillary's 'Second Stimulus'
3/27/2008
Video: Hillary Clinton on John McCain & Economy
3/27/2008
Clinton Kicks Off Solutions For The American Economy Tour In North Carolina
3/27/2008
Response from Policy Director, Neera Tanden, on Sen. Obama's Remarks Today on the Economy
3/27/2008
HUBdate: Creating Jobs
3/27/2008
HUBdate: "March to Victory"
3/26/2008
Hillary Clinton Responds to John McCain on Iraq
3/26/2008
Statement from Campaign Manager Maggie Williams on New Vote in Michigan
3/26/2008
NEW VIDEO: Rep. John Murtha On The Trail With Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania
3/26/2008
HUBdate: Retirement Security
3/25/2008
Hillary Clinton Reacts to Sen. McCain's Support for Social Security Privatization & His Housing Speech
3/25/2008
Liberty City Democratic Club Endorses Hillary Clinton
3/25/2008
Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements
3/25/2008

Posted by: Jennifer | March 28, 2008 1:15 AM

The telephone rings it's 3:00 am and Hillary answers .... Bill is that you? No, a woman 's voice answers, Bill is with me and is not coming home tonight..... Hillary goes nuclear !!!

Posted by: Mike | March 28, 2008 3:10 AM

I did not have sex with THAT woman !!!!
Chelsea and I dodged sniper fire before she jogged on 9/11. I look forward to a woman president, just not Hillary Clinton. PS: Yes it was a fair question, I have never seen a presidential candidate pimp out their children while running for office, so if she put her out there she should answer ALL questions. Just as the question, Will Hillary go nuclear over Bill's extra maritial affairs ?

Posted by: Mike | March 28, 2008 3:22 AM

Yes, it's fair to ask Chelsea any and all questions. Especially when she's spouting Clinton camp propaganda. If she can't stand the heat, go back to her sheltered life. Also, at 27 years old, she isn't a child.

Posted by: estelle evert | March 28, 2008 8:00 AM

I think Chelsea should do porn.

Posted by: Jman | March 28, 2008 8:37 AM

IF CHELSEA CLINTON CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT, SHE COULD LEAVE THE SPOTLIGHT. SHE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, NO MATTER WHAT HER PARENTS TELL HER. ANY QUESTION AND ALL QUESTIONS ARE FAIR TO AN ADULT--AND SHE IS AN ADULT AT 27--WHO IS A SURROGATE FOR A CANDIDATE. SALLY QUINN WAS CORRECT IN HER RESPONSE. AND WHY THE PRESS IS PLAYING "BEATEN DOG", I DON'T KNOW.

Posted by: estelle evert | March 28, 2008 8:41 AM

I think it is ok to ask the question ,this is America,thank God! Freedom !

Posted by: Monica l. | March 28, 2008 11:52 AM

It is as fair as Hillary lying about being qualified to be president !

Posted by: Monica | March 28, 2008 11:55 AM

Leave my little GIRL OUTTA THIS!!

Posted by: Bill clinton | March 28, 2008 12:01 PM

Uh Jennifer read up. Obama had written a letter a month before Hillary's speech to the Fed Chairman with his ideas which she used in her speech almost word for word.
It's all over the internet. Read up.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 28, 2008 12:45 PM

I love how people just react like this guy was asking "So what do you think of your Dad cheating on your Mom"? That's not what happened. The question was whether Chelsea thought her mother's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal ("vast right-wing conspiracy" obviously proved not to be eventually) may have damaged her mother's credibility - the admitted Clinton-supporting journalist was serving her a softball to allow her to deny that her mother's reaction had damaged her mother's credibility in any way and to allow her to subtly encourage voters to sympathize with her mother for having gone through that. For someone so apparently intelligent, she failed to realize and seize the opportunity the reporter had provided her and her mother. Also, she claimed she'd never been asked that in 70 other college stops - uh, she never submitted to a Q&A at any of those previous stops (she only spoke and took no questions). After the hysterical reaction of the Republicans to the Lewinsky matter (impeachment? really??), I can certainly understand the Clintons' paranoia on the issue, but it's unfortunately not going away, so she'd better learn to deal with it, or not take any more Q&As.

Posted by: TDS | March 28, 2008 2:28 PM

Hillary probably smoked "The Cigar".

Posted by: Wolfgang | March 28, 2008 3:35 PM

Chelsea,

It IS our business.

Monica may have owned the blue dress.

But the taxpayers of the United States all owned the carpet.

Is it wrong for the people of the United States to expect the kind of president who will neither cheat on his wife nor cheat on the populace, in terms of telling them truth?

Posted by: Robert Campbell | March 28, 2008 4:54 PM

Why is it that Clinton supporters are so dense that they cannot post to a blog without posting the same thing 4 or 5 times. Yeah, we get the point, you are under-educated as the exit polls show Clinton voters to be.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 5:03 PM

If and when Obama wins the election we should all treat him like a King, Rodney King.

Phil Singer, Deputy Communications Director: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that ExxonMobil, Shell and others are among his donors. I wonder if they'll fix the ad."

A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar - are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum.

In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which was written in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney's energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies.

Obama is a freaking liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: J.R. from Dallas | March 28, 2008 5:52 PM

Hmmm, JR from Dallas. Also from the "Center for Responsive Politics"

The 20 Clinton-backing fat cats who vaguely threatened House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to change her tune on superdelegates lest their purses and pocketbooks slam shut have contributed almost "$24 million to Democratic candidates and committees over the last 10 years," according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

They've donated almost $554,000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns and her leadership PAC -- compared to less than a tenth of that, $52,200, for Sen. Barack Obama.

"To borrow from an investment firm's old ad campaign," says the Center, "when big donors talk, politicians listen."

Works both ways doesn't it. And if you can watch the films of Senator Clinton saying she had to duck and run from sniper bullets while the film showed the reception with the child greeting her, and call the Obama campaign liars, you are something else. And then Hillary says she was sleep-deprived and mis-spoke.

You poor disillusioned Clinton supporters.

Posted by: annonymouse | March 28, 2008 6:17 PM

Yes. Chelsea is 28, not 12. Stop treating her like a child. If she doesn't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: CaliGuy | March 28, 2008 11:07 PM

Yes. Chelsea is 28, not 12. Stop treating her like a child. If she doesn't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: CaliGuy | March 28, 2008 11:07 PM

Go Obama 2008!!!

The Clintons are evil liars!!!

Posted by: CaliGuy | March 28, 2008 11:11 PM

The student has a right to try to understand how Hillary, heir to her husband's throne, handled a significant event. The Lewinsky scandal not only impacted their lives, but also lives of the entire country, paving the way for fascist Bush and his men in black.
The student's question wasn't a moralistic indictment of Hillary or Bill; it was fair to question this huge part of the country's history and her response to it. Maybe it made her tougher, stronger, more motivated, and empathic. She's running for office of pres. of the U.S. and we, the ones who hire her, should know all about her and how she handles crisis.
What really irked me was that Chelsea was rude instead of gracious. She could have simply replied "This is a very sensitive issue for me, one that that I'm prepared to talk about. Let's focus on my mother's strengths." Instead, she appeared rude and dismissive. It was obviously a difficult period in her life, but it can't have been the first time that she thought about this event. Perhaps her comments were meant to deflect from Hillary's latest lies over the Bosnia sniper caper. Hillary's response to this obvious subterfuge, "I was sleep deprived when I said it," only reinforces the fact that she is a consummate liar and/or that she will indeed be too tired to answer the White House phone at 3 A.M. You can't be tough and experienced one minute, and fuzzy brained yet calculating the next. That's not leadership style I embrace.
I'm a loyal Democrat, and I think Hillary is bright and capable, but I am voting for Barack, whose response about his "racist" minister was balanced by reason, honesty, and loyalty. He does not discount the fact of institutional racism any more than he discounts the fact that that his preacher reached too far. Bravo for his intelligence and honesty and humanity.
He is an authentic voice. We've heard far too much rhetoric and lies from Hillary. Her support of the war still troubles me. Her decision was based on pure politics. And what's with Chelsea's command that the press stay away. Are the Clinton's royalty? Is she afraid that there will be a leak in the dam, a leak that her mother or father won't be able to plug? Why does the press tolerate this. Chelsea, don't act as a surrogate for your mother by acting weak and rude and short-sighted.
My only response to her would have been: Obama. Obama. Obama.

Posted by: Lucia | March 29, 2008 1:22 AM

Jman is correct, she has the lips for it. Wolfgang would you like to purchase some pictures?

Posted by: argo | March 29, 2008 2:24 AM

Waaaaaa you hurt my feelings

Posted by: Howie Feltersnatch | March 29, 2008 8:13 AM

The question reflects a concern among voters and therefore is a fair question.

The response can only leave voters wondering, could a second Clinton administration offer another circus, part II?

Posted by: SB, New Haven | March 29, 2008 11:25 AM

I am tired of these silly adolescent questions and comments from the press. Reporters should be required by their employers to study the real issues, so they can ask questions that will get useful information to voters. I'm sure all the voyers and celebrity struck teens want to hear about Monika, but we are so deprived of real information, interview time should not be wasted with this crap.

Posted by: Elton Carey | March 29, 2008 11:45 AM

I agree with the majority here who believe that the question was fair, maybe
necessary, that her answer was clearly prepared (when she heard the word "Lewinsky" the prepared flash card fell down before her eyes and she read it verbatim) but not responsive to the question. It didn't even make sense. Moreover, as a surrogate for the campaign and an adult, she is open to any and all questions regarding the behavior of her parents during their first term in the White House, and she should be open to questions from ALL of the press. There is a clear double standard here and the press, who is used to staying away from Chelsea because of her childhood in the White House, is inappropriately gun shy. I agree that her answer was rude and unprofessional and if she felt unwilling to answer, she could have graciously deflected. Finally, her father has recently said that politics are tough and dirty in America and everyone should "saddle up" and quit whining. Exactly, and Chelsea should do the same.

As for the comments about Senator Obama's children and his drug use, these are clearly irrelevant, inappropriate and unduly nasty. Senator Obama was in his 20s when he used drugs in a limited fashion, he was not in office and his children were not even a glimmer in his eye. His daughters are currently minors and not campaigning for their father. The comparison just doesn't work and shows the writers are overly biased and perhaps prejudiced.

Regarding Obama's youthful drug usage, he disclosed it voluntarily 13 years ago before running for office; the NY Times recently did an investigative report on the issue and his friends at the time said it was minor usage (in fact, having reached that conclusion, the Times tried to claim he was overstating the drug usage for political benefit - ridiculous). I am roughly the same age as Obama, also used drugs in a minimal fashion in college (who didn't?) and I am now running my own law practice, raising a family, on the board of a therapeutic school, a worship leader at my church, and haven't touched drugs in 20 years. Lighten up on the drug issue, really.

Posted by: Joanna C in Illinois | March 29, 2008 12:00 PM

First, 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 she 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.

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 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 is this just typical Clinton family say-anything to get elected.

It seems to me that if Hillary and Bill want to use their 28 year old daughter to get votes, being liflelong 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..after listening to them for 28 years, she must know what they stand for.


Posted by: PatrickNYC | March 29, 2008 12:06 PM

I have a question for Chelsea Does she think her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Do you think her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
Do you think her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
Do you think her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
Do you think her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
Do you think her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
Do you think her mother's credibility was damaged by the Monica Lewinsky scandal?
You want to be in the public eye then answer the hard questions too!

Posted by: Fair and Just | March 29, 2008 12:08 PM

The fact that Obama supporters think its "just fine" to ask a woman about her father's sex life shows just what kind of people they are.

The irony of it all is that they accuse Hillary of "being willing to do anything to win", when she's run a clean campaign and Obama's run a dirty one.

If Obama's the Democratic candidate, McCain will be the next President of the US.


Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:22 PM

Like most people, I do believe that Bill's many affairs are between him and his family. Including the embarassment that cmes with having them made public. And that believe applies to other public officials.

However, Bill Clinton lied under oath. Perjury is a felony. At that moment it ceased to be a private matter. He should have refused to answer or told the truth.
I do not understand why some people, including some posts above, do not understand the difference between...

1)sex and lying about sex being a private matter, and...

2) lying about anything, including sex, UNDER OATH in a judicial proceeding, being a very public matter.

Perjury underminds a fair judicial system upon which any democracy depends. The fact that it was part of an Impeachment also makes it a public matter. There is no exception in law from lying about anything..no matter how personal, embarassing, or harmful to ones self or family.

Again, it was not about sex, it was about perjury.

And that is not a victimless crime. The other party to the judicial proceeding may be harmed, in addition to signaling that it is all right to lie in other proceedings. Is this the system you want where anyone can choose to not tell the truth if it is "personal".


Posted by: PatrickNYC | March 29, 2008 12:35 PM

The person who asked the question IS A HILLARY SUPPORTER!!!!! READ THE WHOLE STORY BEFORE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:37 PM

The person who posted the comment at 12:37 possted using my handle to make it appear that it came from me.

That's a perfect example of the kind of "dirty tricks" that Obama supporters use in their attempt to win at any cost.

Their cost will be losing the election.


Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 12:42 PM

The person with the ID of "what do you care" is another typical Clinton supporter, an old, under educated lady with time on her hands.

Posted by: billy | March 29, 2008 2:10 PM

PatrickNYC is absolutely correct. After all, by the Billary standards (that it's okay to lie about personal things, even under oath) then, hell, since going to jail is VERY personal, we should all feel free to follow their lead and lie all the time, sworn oaths be damned!

Four or eight more years of these sick puppies? I don't think so. We're at a juncture, a real juncture in American politics. Please, for the love of everything this country once stood for and can stand for again, PLEASE consider Barack.

Posted by: Phil | March 29, 2008 3:17 PM

Chelsea has entered the political forum, so she can't select what questions are or are not off-limits. If she can't handle tough questions, then get of the campaign trail. Typical Clinton (all of them) reaction -- "we don't have to answer to anyone, since we are always right."

Posted by: young, highly educated, non-aligned voter | March 29, 2008 6:41 PM

C'mon, was this really "It's none of your business!" Kind of question? Of course not!!! What a poor answer for her to give. I don't care if she's visited 70 million campuses 70 million times...she was trying to show off with that part of the answer. Grow up Chelsea!

Posted by: N/A | March 29, 2008 7:08 PM

I'm sorry Howie Feltersnatch I'll send you some pictures, also.

Posted by: argo | March 29, 2008 7:31 PM

Yes, it was a fair question. If she can't stand the heat, she needs to get out the kitchen of politics.

I'm sorry for her that her dad was such a poor example with Monica Lewinsky, but it's a fact that it happened. Chelsea like the rest of the world needs to appropriately deal with life's harsh realities.

I'm also sorry that Chelsea was put in a position to have to lie on behalf of her mom regarding Bosnia. Before evidence of the lie was revealed, Chelsea stated that she stands by her mom's story i.e. that they had to run to their cars with their heads down under sniper fire.

Chelsea (like the rest of the world), should do what is good, right, true and noble. If she has to lie to save her mom on the campaign trail, she should not be campaigning.

Posted by: jane doe | March 30, 2008 12:09 PM

The coverage around Chelsea shows us all her privileged attitude and inflated sense of importance. Something to remember when she runs for a public office one day.

Jonathan
Owings Mills, MD

Posted by: Jonathan | March 30, 2008 12:29 PM

The question is completely fair. As a democrat and as someone who is very committed to removing a republican from leading this country, the question was right on. Chelsea's response was absurd-- as a voter, unfortunately, it is my business. I felt that Hillary Clinton kowtowed during the Lewinsky scandal, but I would be open to hearing an explanation. To me, this will be a real issue in my decision. As a woman and wife, I was disappointed in Hillary. Although I really wish it wasn't my business, the specter of her manner will loom as I cast my vote.

Posted by: betsy | March 30, 2008 2:36 PM

First let me say that I'm not a Hillary supporter and never really liked Bill Clinton as president. I've had the impression that theirs is a marriage of convenience probably going even further back than Monica Lewinsky.

Asking their daughter that question is inappropriate and I liked her answer better than either parent's answer on most things. Seemed shocked and then just told them to take a walk. Good for her.

People related to those in the public eye should not be painted with the same broad brush as their (in)famous relatives.

Good for Chelsea.

Posted by: JonCommenter | March 30, 2008 8:21 PM

For those who think the question is "fair", I mean, get a life.
The subject was highly sensitive, no matter how old Chelsea is, or how famous her parents are. I mean I'm very curious to know what would YOU say if you were in her shoes. Geez.

Posted by: Christina | March 30, 2008 9:54 PM

FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART

Posted by: FART | March 30, 2008 10:46 PM

FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART FART

Posted by: FART | March 30, 2008 10:47 PM

If someone wants to know the answer to that question all they have to do is read the answer in Hillary's book. Evan Strange is a smug jackass. I've ssen him interviewed several times because of this. He got what he wanted, which was his own exposure....his (over) 15 minutes of fame. I believe he didn't ask the question for any other reason than to punch Chelsea in the gut. It would be like asking Jackie how she felt looking over and seeing John's brains flying out of his head during the Dallas motorcade in 1963. Let's just get down in the dirt for more gossip....we don't seem to have enough of it talk about.

Posted by: Jeanne | March 30, 2008 10:50 PM

TDS----Chelsea generally DOES take questions from the audience. I don't know where you say her at, but it was rare if she didn't.

Posted by: Jeanne | March 30, 2008 11:12 PM

While I have no say in this fight ( I am a Republican), I would have to say yes this is a legtimate question......The woman is over 18 and was somewhat close to the inner dealings of this incident ( obvisouly not to a greater degree of the people directly involved), but she might have some insight on this. She is a very educated woman and I would like to hear what she has to say about her Father's infidelities if she so inclines to answer this question. If she chooses not to then I think the media needs to respect this ( which is often not the case) and drop it. In simple terms it is still part of the current events, and has a direct part of the future of at least one of the Presidential canidates, so why shouldn't this question be brought up to any of the Clintons ?
As for her being the Daughter of the ex President she does not desreve a "pass" on this, since the media is a fine edged sword and it cuts both ways..... With some of the personal critisism by the media on our current President and his family and having to endure it is more than fair to ask these types of question by the Former President and his family. What is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander....

Posted by: Rich | March 31, 2008 10:39 AM

For those who think it was a legitimate question, what if someone had directly asked one of the Bush girls in 2004 about their father's almost total inability in responsibly fulfilling the duties of his office (i.e., mess after mess resulting from his political appointees), has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands because of a war he and Chaney concocted, is a Chaney puppet, and, at best, has a quasi-normal IQ. I doubt that any of these questions would have been as painful as it was for Chelsea to be reminded of her father's indiscretions, especially in a public arena. Obviously, Evan Strange has never suffered a family's pain resulting from adultery. But if it happens, maybe there will be someone to publicly dredge up that pain.

Posted by: Connie | March 31, 2008 11:31 AM


Connie


Your answer is missing the mark here. First off the Bush daughters are not and will not need to actively campaign for their Father, while Chelsea is actively doiong for her mother. Sorry but when you take on your parents cause you are surley going to be put in the hot seat for what is considered a sensational. The question brought before her is / was / always legitmate since she is an adult and she is putting herself in this postion by campaigning for her Mother. Wither people agree the question is in bad taste or not the press has every right to do this since it is their job to sell newspapers / TV / ect and this type of headline will do this.

As for what you think about our current President that is your opinion and you have your right to express your displeasure, but the simple fact is the decesion he made in his terms where in the interest of National Security, and not for "personal pleasure" like his predicessior.........

Posted by: Rich | March 31, 2008 2:17 PM

I was favoring Obama because of this very issue. Sorry Hillary but if a persons religion is an issue, certainly who a person marries and aligns themself with is an issue. If Chelsea can't handle the press and public she should stay home. I think Hillary was weak to stay with Bill. Her daughter showed like weakness yesterday.

Posted by: wife and mother | March 31, 2008 3:52 PM

It wouldn't be fair to ask her, IF she weren't out there campaigning.

IF she weren't out there BEGGING for questions

IF she were staying at home, being reserved, then it would be poor form to ask her such a thing.

In fact, it shows poor form to ask it even now.

BUT, as a campaigner, it's so childish of her to deflect hard questions in favor of questions that make her and her mother look good. Americans have questions they need answers to, I'm sorry if they aren't sugarcoated, but the world needs to know your thoughts and opinions if you are RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: JP | March 31, 2008 7:06 PM

Fair and necessary...a whole new generation of voters were protected as children from the unseemly aspects of the Clinton administration, and it is time for them to learn the truth about the famous family...stains and all. If the Clintons have trouble talking about one of the biggest scandals of our time, the IMPEACHMENT of a president and any other questions Americans want to ask, then they should go home. Frankly, I think it is troubling that they can leave their home in the first place. Wouldn't healthy, moral people feel embarrassed to beg for our votes and belittle others given their tremendous unsavory baggage?

Posted by: jul | March 31, 2008 11:47 PM

"It's none of your business???"...SORRY Chelsea, but it became America's business because of the position your parents held and are trying to hold again. If a person can't remain true and faithful to their family, how can we as a nation be certain that one will be true and faithful to their country. Our country was built on the foundation of good moral values and trust. So, I believe the question was quite fair for the sake of the country's integrity.

Posted by: George | April 1, 2008 12:04 AM

Her dad got blown in the WH while Hillary was there so it makes it our business. Like Mauer said, if Hillary wants to asks why Obama did not leave a church for Politically Incorrect Speeches, Somebody needs to ask Hillay why she did not leave a serial cheating husband! Talk about the press being soft on Obama. If little Miss Priss can't stand the heat, she should get out the damn kitchen. Thats my view and you a welcome to it or not! www.oneblackmansview.com

Posted by: One Black Mans View | April 1, 2008 2:10 AM

My daughter never had sex with Monica .She never has had sex!! She is not married ,and she is a sweet virgin!

Posted by: Hillary | April 1, 2008 12:20 PM

Ha ha April Fools !!

Posted by: Hillary | April 1, 2008 12:21 PM

Dad gets served in a federal office while on the phone handling the nation's business by his subordinate staffer.

Mom goes on national TV & tells the world that the idea that dad would do such a thing stems from a vast right wing conspiracy.

The heads of the 3 branches of government come together to participate in hearings and dad is impeached.

Not really a private family affair. Chelsea has even refused questions from 9 year olds. If she doesn't want to deal with questions she needs to stay in the background.

Posted by: tina | April 1, 2008 3:59 PM

To the poster who listed the repeat:

CLINTON GO!!

Yes, many of us wish that she would just GO!

Posted by: Mary | April 1, 2008 4:03 PM

What Mr. Strange should have asked Chelsea is...." do you think your mother is a stronger person knowing that Monica is a swallower or a spitter....?"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 1, 2008 11:54 PM

It has been said that Bill Clinton was our first black president.
Question: If that is true how come Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have not come to Chelsea's aid

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2008 7:51 AM

Chelsea gave jman the crabs

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2008 10:14 PM

Come on,Clinton!I am a middle school student come from China,and I support you are right!you shouden`t adende yourself on despear,you dream will come true.

Posted by: JINGJIANG | April 3, 2008 8:24 AM

Pro Obama here but no. Why is this considered acceptable? What is this, a tabloid? And what does it have to do with the issues? I'm sick to death of important concerns getting trumped over BS like this. What is Chelsea supposed to know about it anyway?

Posted by: Erik R | April 7, 2008 4:37 AM

The real question should be, Why was the first student, and others since, to ask the question, Clinton supporters? A sign of desperation?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Has anyone noticed how much Chelsea is begining to resemble Paula Jones. What would Freud think?

Posted by: Monika | April 9, 2008 12:08 PM

GO CLINTON!! GO CLINTON!!!

GO AWAY!!!

Posted by: fred | April 9, 2008 10:59 PM

dowxzjufc tsrj wlqmyeitb lbqmd mxrvklf upqswkgi gkta

Posted by: bfznqkr vohkubz | April 11, 2008 1:13 AM

tcasydf slqpcov trpqfes hzyom gikao bqeau fwno http://www.yoimub.pmhyxs.com

Posted by: efavs otip | April 11, 2008 1:14 AM

Enough was made during Bill Clintons reign; the incident had no bearing on Hillary and Chelsea capabilities, nor Bill Clinton's. Hillary you are commended on how you handled the situation and your way of dealing personally with Bill. Chelsea you deserve an attaboy telling those that ask you, it's none of your business. I will tell you this: "Your Mom and Dad have done a marvelous job in raising you, I said long time ago that Chelsea would be our first woman president", little did I think that your mom would do it", but you still have time-gain all the knowledge you can until. Go Hillary,go Hillary, go Hillary, go Hillary, go Hillary, go Hillary.

Posted by: Mary Lee Russell | April 27, 2008 1:48 PM

I loved her answer.It has nothing to do with the way the country was run.We all had great times when the Clintons we're in office.His behavior had nothing to do with his daughter or his wife. (What most Americans should ask is, did this in anyway affect him as to how he ran the country? (no) so get over it Hillary did and it took a very strong women to forgive him for breaking her trust.She showed that rebuilding trust between her and Bill is a good thing and it made them stronger and better parents to their daughter.I suppose it would have been easy had she tossed him to the curb.( Think about it who did he hurt?)

Posted by: Rose | April 29, 2008 7:55 PM

I wonder how many young voters, being so young, know about the Clintons lies, adultery, and campaign finance corruption...even recently ( Hsu)

Chelsea takes a risk when she stumps for her parents day in day out. THese things are bound to happen...the Clintons campaigning so aggresively for Hilary make one wonder why she cant just do her own campaigning...who is running for PResident?

Bill Clintons lies and adultery have everything to do with the Clintons. He broke his oath to his wife. Why she did not leave him is a testament to either her lust for power or her weakness not being able to leave an abusive partner.

Posted by: ck | May 5, 2008 2:48 PM

I think it's totally fair.

First. The question wasn't about Bill and Hillary's relationship. It was about how she handled a crisis. A family crisis. As far as I'm concerned if she's elected as my president, she's part of my family now. Is she going to cower when the Sultan of Dubai invites Bill to the palace for drinks and persuasion? Certainly not. She could have walked away from it all, but it takes class and charisma to stick in their for Bill's bad choices.

Chelsea needs to rehearse a little better. I don't think she understood the question, and her maturity showed through. Her response was to the incident, not to the character of her mothers decisions in the post incident. Clearly the questionnaire is sharper then Chelsea. But then there's only one Rhodes Scholar in the family...


Posted by: Pander | May 7, 2008 6:07 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company