The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

hilary all the way

I can understand why brilliant and lovely Chelsea Clinton has avoided the limelight; she was subjected to cruelty during her teenage years at the White House. Perhaps the most egregious comment was made by John McCain in 1998 to a Republican audience: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." President of the United States in 2008???? I think not.

I am a student at the University of Utah and was at this event. Even though I am not considering voting for Hillary Clinton whatsoever, I wanted to hear what Chelsea had to say about the issues and what her mother stands for. I think everyone should be heard, regardless of political affiliation, so I waited to listen when I heard she was coming.

She is extremely articulate and when she didn't know her mother's standing on a particular issue, she didn't try to make something up, she honestly said that she didn't know. I think that takes a lot out of a person, but she didn't leave it at that. She offered to get the man's email so she could get him an answer personally. After walking away from her speech, I wasn't persuaded in the slightest about her mother, but if Chelsea Clinton ever decides to run....she just might have my vote....

Chelsea Clinton, is a real good model for the young people, articulate, smart and kind. She also loves public service.
Hilary is a good mother, because Chelsea love and respect her so much.
Let a deserving mother be the president of America, and see how effective she will be in making America very progressive again.

Gee, Chelsea found her voice. Her mom found hers--after more than 35 years "experience"--just a few weeks ago in New Hampshire.

What are the odds that Chelsea's voice is any more authentic than Hillary's?

The "new" Hillary seems alot like the "new Nixon" circa 1968.

Unimpeachable comparison, eh?

I am a Republican (maybe in name only) and have been for eons, but I don't always vote that way. I am sick of W, Rummy, and Cheney and the way we are going. I had high hopes that I could go into the voting booth and have a very difficult time choosing between two very good and very qualified candidates. This is something I have been hoping from the Democrats for years, but IMHO they have failed once again to deliver the goods. Frequently I vote for the lesser of the two evils.

I do not believe that HRC is the best choice for our country - forget about the party. She will be one of the most devisive people we have had in that office in a long time. Too many people on both sides of the aisle dislike her and cooperation will be difficult.

And I can't get all revved up about Obama and about McCain. So once again we are a country with many brilliant and capable people and it seems too few of them want the job. Looks to be four more years of some kind of a mess, be it a republican mess or a democratic mess. Sad testimony indeed.

Ralph Nader today said about obama:

Obama, he said, is a particular disappointment, since his background suggests that he knows the importance of progressive issues yet hasn't fought for them in the Senate.

"His record in the Senate is pretty mediocre," Nader said. "His most distinctive characteristic is the extent to which he censors himself. He hasn't performed as a really progressive first-term senator would."

His "self-censorship," Nader said, "is a reflection of character."

Ralph Nader has formed a presidential exploratory committee, and said in an interview Wednesday that he will launch another presidential bid if he's convinced he can raise enough money to appear on the vast majority of state ballots this fall.

Even though Ralph Nader has become a vote splitter, he has support in the Independent voters mind.

Chelsea should continue supporting her Mother and so should Bill Clinton.

I have nothing negative to say about Chelsea. But, why exactly is this newsworthy? I don't get it.

I agree perter DC

Isn't America tired of the Clintons by now? Down with dynasties!

Dear Inquisitor:

If you call the Clinton's blindly ambitious what do you call Barack Obama currently a first term as a junior U.S. Senator from Illinois who makes land deals with "indicted influence pederler redozo" The Clinton's are already multimillionares. I frankly beleive that HRC is running becasue she can make a difference. If you are going to call someone blindly ambitious you need to define the term. Why would a millionare subject themselves to the rants of people like yourself-with out just explanation- wif the candidate HRC didn;t have some sense of community or civil service. A junior senator running for President is what I call blindly ambitious.

I'm glad to know that a Stanford and Oxford educated Woman is actually articulate. Who would have though she could sting a few sentences together.

If as they say, it's Hilary's turn and she is president for 8 years, then it's Jeb Bush's turn and he stays in the White House for another 8 years, that makes 16 years. Chelsea will be 43 or 44, then it will be her turn, then it goes back to the Bush family, then the Clinton's dog. How insane would that be?

it is beyond reasonable thought that somehow "articulate" and "well-spoken" and "charismatic" are the qualities that america is looking for in a leader....how about "experienced", having "depth of thought." standing for something, anything, any plan, any ideas, anything other than the smooth silver-tongued speeches that some say "inspire"....well, i remember, john kennedy, i was alive during his campaign and subsequent "win" of the white house, and you, mr obama are no john kennedy! the old war horse is out of the barn again in the guise of ted kennedy...yes, oh yes...."change, new, fresh" all the words all the rhetoric, but out comes old ted, spewing forth his blustery "old" time politics...and what about caroline? who in the world, who in their right mind would tell her this is like her father was????!!!! not a chance caroline-your father was nothing like this...if you cannot read and understand the facts surrounding his presidency then please have some conversations with your cousins...bobby's kids....their father was a man of purpose and dedication...maybe not a resident of "camelot" but he certainly guarded the gate...his murder was devastating to this country and to the youth who were then the up and coming hillary clinton and president clinton...they remember, they, like myself,remember quality and dedication...they aspired to bring it back and to be at the forefront of the fight...i cannot understand your comparison to your father, of a man who doesn't have the experience or heart for the nation....also, after president eisenhower's administration, the world was NOTHING like it is now.yes, there was the cold war, but the issues and the wars and the horrific condition around the world-the economy, the price per barrel of oil,terrorism and the like did not exist then...we need someone who is experienced, not says what we want to have happen, but have the ability to make it happen...he seems to merely have some special interest groups behind him who are "selling" him to america-easy because he falls into that category of, "can speak very well and persuade very deftly", and obscure what is really important for our nation...senator clinton, at each turn has reiterated her plans, her specifics about all matters which have been asked...mr obama has merely said "yes, we need to fix this problem and that problem" How mr obama are you going to do it? you have no plan, but you have ted and caroline...maybe it's time america woke up to the scam...for some reason the word "dynasty" was nasty as referred to the clintons...but the kennedy dynasty appears on the obama scene and it's a whole new word! right and proper and a real plus to the candidate's campaign...president clinton, i feel said it best when he said it's all a fairy tale...we don't need a fairy tale camelot...we need a sound, thought-ful, competent, experienced president...one who doesn't make us feel that squeamishness about "does he know what he's doing?" that is the feeling i get about about mr obama...the apprehension i feel-i don't think he has a clue. and in closing-"what about that land deal mr obama?"---explain that.

If inquisitor01 is any indication of the IQ of those supporting Obama, I feel sorry for Obama.

It is these idealogues who are apparently just what Obama is railing against. He says he wants to stop the partisanship and fighting. Well it is supporters like inquisitor01 who wouldn't let him do that.

I give Obama credit for being a charismatic and incredible speaker. He is inspiring. But let's not confuse that with any kind of experience. He has practically no record at all.

Even when one denigrates Hillary's meeting with 80 world leaders and the people in those countries as merely having tea, she is one step ahead of Obama. She learnt to be a diplomat and understands that every utterance even as a First Lady is representative of the United States and the President.

My other problem is one that will face the Democrats if Obama is our candidate. He has been given a free ride by the press and certainly the Republicans won't give him one. Take today's story about Obama and Rezko in the Post. They just gloss over the fact that in essense the Obamas' got a $500,000 gift from the Rezko's in that housing deal. Rezko's wife Rita buying the lot next to the Obama house becasue he couldn't buy the house without someone closing on the lot on the same day, for nearly $700,000 after which he got the house at less than the asking price and then Rezko selling the lot to the Obamas for $104,000 a few years later.

If the Clinton's did that we would have a special prosecutor. Obama is allowed to say what he did was "boneheaded". Boneheaded my A**- it was a great real estate deal with a sleazy operator who is now indicted and who Obama knew was sleazy because headlines in the Chicago Tribune said so at the same time Obama was making the deal.

All of this is a sidebar to Obama's lack of any real experience or record but let's at least play fair here.

Neither Obama or Clinton are absolutely perfect, but they should both be judged the same way. Whitewater was about much less money, $100,000 and Ken Starr cleared the Clinton's of any wrongdoing after years of spending much more than that on his investigation.

Clinton has 35 years of working on educaton, healthcare, children's rights and woman's rights- she will stand up for working class people and for the poor and we know that she has a record of doing this, but with some successes and some failures. Obama on the other hand has really no record for his only two years in the Senate, and still can't really explain his 130 "present" votes in the Illinois State Legislature in any way other than voting in a way to not offend anyone as he planned for his next step up the ladder in politics. Well as Andrew Young recently said, I want to vote for Obama, but I will wait till 2016 when he has a stronger record and is ready and will still only be 54 years old.

Hillary is ready now!

Chelsea said: "I do think experience matters."

Well, your dad didn't have much experience when he was elected, Chel, but yeah, I agree with you in a way. That's one of the reasons I'm supporting Obama. He's been answerable to the voters longer than Hillary.

Inquisitor 01, instead of relying on headlines and soundbites, you should read Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge" to get your facts straight on Hillary's dedication to and experience in public service. In BCs second term, she may have stepped into the shadows, but it's naive to think that she wasn't privy to policy information behind closed doors. This type of insider's knowledge shouldn't be discounted. And as far as not knowing about BCs philandering, or even for staying with him after the fact, how does that that have any real bearing on her intelligence and experience? People are flawed, even the exceptional ones.

Sad,I wonder how much choice she had in the matter.She must of heard of Flowers,Lewinsky,Jones.What kind of character does she think her"Stand by your man"mother has.Or maybe win at all cost includes sacrificing your daughter.

Posted by: skwira | January 30, 2008 11:06 AM

Your comment shows how intelligent you are, you seem a very unhappy individual. As a parent myself my kids love me so much that they will go to the bat for me without asking now these days you can't force anyone to do something that they dont like and Chelsea loves her mother and father. IT just shows so dont be an ignorant and hater.

Re Chelsea's point about the cost of deporting illegal immigrants:

Yes, it costs to pay for their services, and yes it costs to deport them. But they are here now, and we are paying their service costs.

Chelsea's point is that it would be an *additional* cost to deport them.

One may argue that after that has been accomplished, there will be no further on-going support costs, but that assumes 100% effectiveness in the deportation, and the money would be needed now.

Any sensible immigration policy would emphasize not only location and deportation of illegals along with effective border security, but also a streamlined immigration process that doesn't penalize those who follow the rules with a 7-year wait due to processing backlogs. Hire more people!

It is this kind of worthless fluff piece that somehow qualifies as "news" that infuriates me. Why not a piece exploring just how Hilary's education plan differs from Obama's? Of course Chelsea is articulate- she better be, after the hundreds of thousands of dollars her parents spent on her private education. And I am sick to death of the "experience" card Hillary's camp pulls at every tired opportunity. Do they refer to her experience in the 90's designing a health care plan so confusing it couldn't even get full support of Democrats? Or her experience working as a corporate lawyer? Obama has experience, and the right kind, if you're a progressive democrat who has ALWAYS stood for America's underclass.

Funny, a few months back, Joel was given some campaign reporting space and I was encouraging him in comments to use it to perform a public service and provide us substantive, responsible political reporting. Sadly, I am reduced to begging him to stop clowning around. To borrow a phrase, "Please stop, you're hurting America."

--Leaving college and immediately going to work for a Hedge Fund says a lot about Chelsea's social consciousness -and how she was raised by her mom and dad. As her dad has been known to say, "Shame on you!"

Yea? What do you do for a living?

There should be no bill of attainder barring those who have successful politicians in their family from running. If Chelsea combines the best qualities of her parents she should be a welcome addition to the political world. She should not lose her rights because some people are scared of dynasties like the Kennedys. When you live a milieu where politics and policies are important and discussed, you essentially have a support network which helps you learn the basics and the nuances and is there to provide input on important topics. Bill Clinton acknowledges that Hillary was urging intervention in Ruwanda long before he realized it should have been done.

With the Obamas you do not get this two for one aspect. Michelle Obama is a highly intelligent and accomplished woman but she is not a policy wonk. While Obama was pursuing his highly important work with Lugar on trying to control weapons proliferation this is how he reports a conversation with his wife:

One day in February i found myself in particularly good spirits, having just completed a hearing on legislation that Dick Lugar and I were sponsoring aimed a restricting weapons and the black-market arms trade. Because Dick was not only the senate's leading expert on proliferation issues but also the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proepects for the bill seemed promising. Wanting to share the good news, I call Michelle from my D. C. office and started explaining the significance of the bill -- how shoulder-to-air missiles could threaten commercial air travel if they fell into the wrong hands, how small-arms stockpiles left over from the Cold War continued to feed conflict across the globe. Michelle cut me off.
"We have ants."
"Huh?"
"I found ants in the kitchen. And in the bathroom upstairs."
"Okay ..." "I need you to buy some ant traps on your way home tomorroW. I'd get them myself, but I've got to take the girls to their doctor's appointment after school. Can you do that for me?"
"Right. Ant traps."
"Ant traps. Don't forget, okay, honey? And buy more than one. Listen, I need to go into a meeting. Love you."

Obama then proceeds to wonder whether other politcians have been asked to bring home ant traps.

It is presented as an endearing example of Michelle damping his pretensions the way she probably did with the older brother she was competititive with.

However, if this is how his own wife interacts with his actions in the Senate it is quite clear why Obama is unable to comprehend that Hillary has substantial, if untraditional, credentials from working with Bill when he was President. If a similar call had been placed from Bill to Hillary, she would probably have been chiming in with the best next steps. And if President Hillary Clinton calls Bill with similar news, she would get the same type of support. It is important.

Leaving college and immediately going to work for a Hedge Fund says a lot about Chelsea's social consciousness -and how she was raised by her mom and dad. As her dad has been known to say, "Shame on you!"

'I'd expect Chelsea (articulate parents, excellent education) to be articulate herself. What's puzzling is that we in the US seem to distrust articulate politicians, evidently preferring those who can barely get through sentences, much less paragraphs' ....

This is because half of Americans read at 6th grade level or below ... and can barely get through sentences and paragraphs. A confederacy of dunces.

vivzig, during the immigration reform debate of last summer, most credible economic analyses concluded that immigration was a net expense to the country, when the the full aggregate of costs and benefits were evaluated. For example, some cost analyses leave out emergency medical service expenses and, in some instances, even omit school expenses associated with educating immigrant children. Admittedly, some economists argue that it's a net wash, or even a net benefit, but, frankly, it seems like the economic studies can and are twisted to suit the purposes of the presenters, for or against immigration. My point still stands in that Chelsea's answer was based on a premise that doesn't make much sense.

I ran into Chelsea a couple of times when she was at Oxford. I remember once I accidentally brushed against Chelsea in Sainsbury's. She'd already taken in the british knack of saying "excuse me" for something that was the other person's fault. Then I saw the security guy, scowling at me, he was all serious and stuff. I was showing a couple of summer students around at the time, showing them the sights, so when they caught up to me I went on. "And that's Chelsea Clinton over there, and this man here's her body guard, aren't you?".

The man was confused for a sec, then just went "Er, yeah, that's right."

Anyways, good for Chelsea. I like the Clintons, and Bill especially. I really don't care about marital indiscretions. But since taking an outsider's interest in this race, I have no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama is a superb, once-in-a-generation type of candidate. His campaign speeches are electrifying. If he was to be the face of america to the world, I really don't see how anyone, whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, can argue with America's foremost status as a democracy, or its political agenda. Even the Palestinians will have to listen. People don't like democracy shoved down their throats. But you show them that America, whites, latinos, and everything, elected a mixed race guy, whose name is susceptible to questionable puns? You show them what the young, more dynamic, less cynical wing of the american voters believe is the proper way to represent america, and they WILL sit up and take notice.

I'm completely addicted to a political race which I have no say in. I don't even care about British politics. I'll be gutted if he loses. I don't think I'll ever get a chance to vote for someone like that.

Joel Achenbach would be better as a "reporter" for People.

Instead of offering a lightweight profile of Chelsea, a real reporter would point out that her bit about immigration offers a FalseChoice and she was deliberately trying to mislead. I don't know whether Achenbach didn't point that out because he's ignorant or because he's trying to help her deceive, but in either case he's just a hack.

I rarely read anything that backs up HRC's experience. Though aware of her failure to bring universal health care back in the early 90's, that's is all I knew. So I did two searches for accomplishments. One for Obama and one for HRC. The Obama came up empty, other than his work organizing black voters. But I was surprised my results for HRC.

Below is a link from the history website that gives a quick summary of her accomplishments, and she was a busy lady from her years in university.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2044.html

As a previous Edwards supporter, I have now switched to the person who deserves the laurels, HRC!

Put simply, it costs something to round them up, and it costs something to leave them here. Any credible discussion would be framed around those basics...

Posted by: mail.mdm

Amazing how ideologues refuse to follow their own rules.

Most credible estimates of immigration costs and benefits suggest that the whole thing is a wash, social services-wise. This is because immigrants pay taxes, especially sales taxes. Not to mention the fact that most illegals are too frightened of deportation to come out of the shadows and actually use most social services.

Frame your discussion around THOSE facts, if you please, and Chelsea's answer looks a lot more reasonable.

Chelsea Clinton is an adult. Of course she had a say in whether or not she would speak. You Clinton haters are a miserable rotten bunch. Of course she is supporting her mother, who will be the first female President of the U.S. She was raised in an era where you Clinton haters were quite loud. It's obvious to me that she wants to avoid drawing your ire as much as possible. Hillary Clinton is doing very very well - anyone check out the Florida results? No one even campaigned there. Could we please get back to the issues?

Dick Cheney is a good public speaker too. It still doesn't make him qualified for anything.

I can't see where Chelsea is any different from her mother.She points out all the problems, but doesn't give the answers for those problems.Shes like her mother in that she doesn't have the experience to fix those problems. Until Mrs.Clinton can get off the easy street,all the liberal newscasts, and can really answer the tough questions, I think she is wasting our time. Let her go on Fox News , The Factor and then Maybe we will get some real answers.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

I was quite disturbed to read Dana Milbank's column today about Senator Clinton's win in Florida. It took me back to the days of Walter Winchell's horrible attacks on F.D.R.. As a child I recall the terrible attacks on F.D.R. being called a traitor,communist,etc. by 90% of mass media and the people did not listen and voted for him four times because he was the right man for America and I feel Senator Clinton is the right woman at the right time to become our President. If one did a content analysis of mass media content,one would see the horrible and distasteful bias toward not only Mrs. Clinton but to candidates on the Republican side. What happened to objective writing of the facts and the careful vetting of all the candidates. If journalism did this before the Iraq war there would be no war today. Journalists and mass media need to stop their propaganda or else our democracy is in trouble. A.B.D.

politicalobserver1: i have to disagree. i'm a lifelong democrat and i bash clinton all the time. and it's not because i think she can win -- i think it's because she cannot beat mccain in the general and because, even if she could, she and her husband's blind ambition stand not for the ideals of the democratic party but for the ideals of the get-ahead-whatever-the-cost corporate spirit in America these days (no surprise that she's accepted more corporate donations than anyone in this race, on either side).

Another point to inquisitor above attending funerals and meeting heads of state is invaluable experience. In times of crisis to have meet and know heads of state could be crucial.

Someone mentioned that public speaking "is in her genes" and I think that hit the nail on the head. I'm sure she must be a bright young lady who has leaned a lot from her public figure parents...who wouldn't! But, let's face it, she is biased, so don't expect anything other than a one-sided opinion when it comes to either her mom or her dad. Just think, if Hillary ascends to the Presidency, we may just have another White House wedding! Woohoo!

I imagine given who Ms. Clinton's parents were and growing up in the White House she has some great insight. And to the poster above. HRC was not the Lady Bird Johnson type of first lady. HRC was invloved in polices pushing Healthcare polices in the first few yesrs of the Clinton Administration. Therefore your analogy to Lady Bird is not valid. Another thought maybe President "Bill" Clinton", President Hillary Clinton" and in twenty years President Chelsea CLinton" Oh boy the Clinton bashers will love the concept. Another thought the Clinton bashers for the most part have never voted for a Democrat. They bash the Clinton's mostly because the Clinton's can win the Presidency. The republicans can't stand the thought of a democrat in the White House.

We continue to confuse articulate speech with substantive speech. For example, Chelsea articulately explaining that we don't have "billions" to round-up illegal immigrants implicitly and illogically suggests the converse; namely, that we do have billions to offer them social services. Put simply, it costs something to round them up, and it costs something to leave them here. Any credible discussion would be framed around those basics, but, apparently, having a glib response is enough for the American electorate, so long as it's articulate.

Allowing their daughter to speak in public is an attempt to garner the youth vote. It might work, but is in all honesty, a bit late in the game.

Sad,I wonder how much choice she had in the matter.She must of heard of Flowers,Lewinsky,Jones.What kind of character does she think her"Stand by your man"mother has.Or maybe win at all cost includes sacrificing your daughter.

I am delighted to hear from Chelsea. From this report she seems very articulate. As to her familiarity with issues and her mother;s positions, why not? She must have heard parents discuss issues ever since she was a baby.

I hope she campaigns more often and we get to see and hear her during the rest of the campaign.

I'd expect Chelsea (articulate parents, excellent education) to be articulate herself. What's puzzling is that we in the US seem to distrust articulate politicians, evidently preferring those who can barely get through sentences, much less paragraphs.

You go Chelsea! Your mother's daughter. I am sure both your parents are extremely proud to have such a bright and loyal and well spoken daughter. Maybe I will get to vote for you some day.

Experience! Now that's a Fairy Tale. Mrs. Clinton took as many trips abroad as Firt Lady Pat Nixon---neither qualifies as experience unless flying in the Presidential jet qualifies for something or attending funerals for heads of state. Being on the BofD at Walmart couldn't possbily add much here. Serving in the Senate is vauable experience. Other than that experience she's been a lawyer, a mom and a wife---all nice but as far as a long resume of accomplishment in government affairs, it's even with the other viable candidates on both sides. And with respect to policy--- if she really was so involved in policy making during the reign of her husband, why didn't she know he was diddling with the staff. Seems to me this lady couldn't control him then and obviously can't control him now. A vote for Hilary is a vote for John McCain who will beat her in the general election. There's no way a moderate Republicans fed up with the war and the religious crazies attempting to hijack the government will vote for Hilary. The Dems need the votes of Independents and moderate Republicans against McCain and Huckleberry to win the General Election.