When Chelsea Was Asked About Monica
The former First Daughter's rebuke of a student who dared to ask about Monicagate highlighted the triumph of emotion over reason in the public square.
The protracted and bedraggled decline in American public argumentation continues at a breathtaking pace. We are fast approaching a time in which emotion may completely displace reason in the sphere of politics.
Chelsea Clinton’s rebuke of Butler University student Evan Strange aptly illustrates this phenomenon and serves as prelude. The student, who happens to be a Hillary supporter, asked Chelsea whether “the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president.”
Assuredly, at least upon initial inspection, his question strikes listeners as being provocative. No doubt the young Democrat wondered if Senator Clinton would ever repent her delusional attacks of yesteryear regarding the political right.
Just before DNA testing proved that her husband’s sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky did transpire, Hillary dismissed the allegations as being the work of “a vast right-wing conspiracy” and a “part of a continuing political campaign against [her] husband.” She morphed a manifestation of Mr. Clinton’s characterological deficits into an ideological battle in which conservatives sought “to undo the results of two elections.”
Apologizing would be the right thing to do. Hillary was most assertive in 1998 and rather than intuit that Bill’s past performance was the best indicator of his future behavior, Hillary reflexively accepted the former president’s vow that no post-modernist liaison “with that woman” had occurred.
With both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton spending countless hours proclaiming to the electorate that a uniter must serve as our 44th president, it is unsettling that Hillary should continue to refuse to atone for the inappropriate and divisive remarks she made. In lieu of this Living History, the relevance of Mr. Strange’s query becomes evident. Contrarily, Chelsea’s response was imperious. It elucidated that her mother’s mold was not broken following her birth in 1947. Specifically, she appeared flustered but said, “Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business.”
The audience responded favorably, but, regardless, Mr. Strange managed to impress. He refused to back down from his words and defended himself admirably. The young man pointed out that Chelsea was stumping for her mother, which meant that no question was off-limits. Further, he stressed that the incident is still something that voters would like to see clarified. Apparently, not everyone has move[d]on.org in the years since.
Personally, I found the episode significant and alarming for two reasons. First, it again revealed the ubiquitous sense of entitlement endemic to all Clintons; second, it displayed the transcendence of emotion over reason in our public square.
It is appalling that Mrs. Clinton, one of the most privileged persons in America, deems honor and responsibility as traits that are below her station. That her daughter views the false allegations she made before a national audience as a private matter underwhelms yet further.
This eventuality should not surprise us, however. Unlike the average politician, Hillary practically got willed the 2000 Democratic nomination for senator of a state in which she had never dwelled. The beatified position in which she found herself was solely reflective of her husband’s connections, and was not contingent upon previous achievement.
Indeed, even Barack Obama, no stranger to accolades and mass devotion, had to launch his heralded career from the low-rent chambers of the Illinois General Assembly. Conversely, for Hillary, no barrier was too steep for her friends to help her surmount.
Regardless of her anointed status, Hillary’s skin remains as wispy today as it was when she resided in the White House. Her minions systematically object to the treatment she receives from the press even when it is issued by leftist allies like Chris Matthews or David Shuster. They have enunciated the argument for the media to masticate over: that her possible rejection by male voters is a product of their own sexism.
Political correctness makes this plausible as we are but pawns to be moved about on a theoretical oppression chessboard. In previous eras, candidates had to reflect on their own inadequacies when their dreams went unfilled, but now they can sooth their threatened pride by pondering the inadequacies of their racist, sexist constituents.
Senator Clinton and her posse are constructs of our age and have purposefully equated criticism with hate speech. This is spurious as no politician has the right to be free from criticism. Were this to be the case then the First Amendment would have no more dominion here than in North Korea.
More realistic parties comprehend that a desire to affix oneself to the dole and promote the needs of your own inner-Napoleon will not always be met with therapeutic affirmation by the masses. Chelsea does not appear to have yet comprehended this fact.
She should acknowledge that her outreach to the general population is an attempt to secure more voters for Team Hillary and not an endeavor in which she should expect to be showered with love.
In this role, Chelsea functions as an agent of her mother’s campaign. Thus, while personal questions about Clinton the Younger may well be none of our business, inquiries relating to the family’s matriarch are most appropriate.
Moreover, her riposte to Mr. Strange was irrational. Not only was her non-answer inexplicable. Its lead-in suggested a belief in a hitherto unknown logical fallacy that might be termed an “appeal to conformity.”
Chelsea held the college student to be wrong because he dared to ask a question she had never heard before. The fellow was “the first person actually that’s ever asked [her] that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses” she visited, which means … nothing. She is making but an appeal to conformity. If no one else has ever contemplated something then it must be wrong. The crowd knows what is best.
Obviously, one’s never hearing a contention has zero correlation with its underlying validity. One’s ignorance can often be attributed to, well, one’s ignorance. This writer has never been asked about the nature of the troposphere, but that would not render as unsound such an inquiry. Uniqueness does not predict relevance.
In Indiana that day, Chelsea exuded her parent’s spirit of entitlement. Her recent forays into politics have exposed her to ridicule, but the trials seem to have only managed to heighten her emotional reactivity.
As a conspicuous voice of the millennial generation, Chelsea needs to learn that placing oneself in the line of fire often results in becoming a magnet for shrapnel. Making enemies and fostering resentment is an unintended — but predictable — byproduct of seeking power, authority, and status. This is true irrespective of one’s sex, race, or creed.
Bill Clinton informed voters in West Virginia that “[i]f a politician doesn’t wanna get beat up, he shouldn’t run for office. If a football player doesn’t want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip he shouldn’t put the pads on.”
The former president’s advice was meant for Barack Obama, but it better applies to his own wife. Her tradition of excoriating critics over slights has been as pervasive as his creative scoring on the golf course.
Hopefully, Chelsea will go her own way after 2008 and show deference to the rules of logic. I’d like to assist in her growth by offering up some counsel here. A mock poster that I treasure provides much-needed guidance: “Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else.” This should console her during future university appearances if the crowds are sparse or her listeners fail to emote in an Oprah-esque fashion.
Bernard Chapin wrote Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island, along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
33 Comments
1. When Chelsea Was Asked About Monica | Hillary Clinton Chronicles:[...] Pajamas Media put an intriguing blog post on When Chelsea Was Asked About Monica [...]
Apr 1, 2008 - 12:40 am 2. C. Siegel:Chelsea is a big girl now, and when she agreed to campaign for her mother, she agreed to taking the hard questions. Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States, not Mother of the Year.
Chelsea has a right to stay out of political campaigning if she wants, indeed, a right to stay entirely out of public life. When she relinquishes that right to indulge in the perks of Political Celebrity, anything she says or does not say can and will be held against her in the court of Political Celebrity.
In her place, I’d join a Cistercian monastery, but we all make our own choices.
Apr 1, 2008 - 1:55 am 3. Mortimer:Wow, this is the stuff that is supposed to knock our socks off, as well as send the mainstream media down the river? This sounds like the usual right wing blog fare for shallow, partisan minds, yet it seem to be the lead story. After all, how old is this petty little sound bite?
Apr 1, 2008 - 6:05 am 4. Jim:It was Chelsea’s reply to the Tuzla landing that is more instructive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEB2P8DNE08
Apr 1, 2008 - 7:14 am 5. Mortimer's an idiot:Thanks Mortimer. You’ve just proved the point of the article. You must be an HRC supporter. Congratulations, even entitlement won’t let you win this year. How much are you hearing the MSM report on this? Not much. How much are you hearing the MSM say what Billy Jeff knows and told Obama, namely that politics is rough and tumble? Nope, didn’t hear that again. Even the folks who are for Obama in the MSM haven’t made a peep about this. Not one noise at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc., etc.
Next, I’m glad to hear you will excoriate your own candidates or personal blog favorites when they refer to a quote that’s a week old. I’m waiting to hear you correct some left-wing nutbag who has misquoted John McCain about the “hundred years” remark, or tell them that this happened weeks ago, and are petty to bring it up. Nevermind that they took one sentence out of context, and ignore the fact that we have had troops in places such as Japan and Germany for 2/3 of a century now. Please post a link where you have done this so we can all feel chastised accordingly.
I do appreciate you opening our eyes and offering to lead all of us in harmony and kumbayah. Thanks.
Apr 1, 2008 - 7:44 am 6. ellsworth charles:I have the feeling chel was prepared by the team for that question, and advisors were confident the media would share her feigned propriety. But it doesn’t seem to be working anymore. It pains most media types to say it, but most grudingly admit she’s in the family business and fair game.
Apr 1, 2008 - 8:48 am 7. CHRIS:For Chelsea Clinton hide behind the cloak of “none of your business” is hypocritical. Consider the facts. The President was caught in an affair with a 21-year old woman who was an intern. Any other federal employee caught using his/her power or position for a sexual conquest would be fired immediately. But the mainstream media loved President Clinton, and did everything in their power to paint this issue as one about sex, when it was clearly one about power. And the Democratic leadership echoed was the mainstream was saying, that the affair was consensual. How the Democratic leadership, then could not see that, how Al Gore, in particular could not see that, will be one of the question history will never resolve. Chelsea should realize that one cannot run away from history, especially one of family. Her father should have at least made her aware of that when she went on the campaign trail to support her mother’s presidential run.
Apr 1, 2008 - 10:13 am 8. Morgan:Amazing how we are holding the children responsible for the sins of the parents. The writer of this article treats the situation as though Chelsea was not horribly affected personally by the Lewinsky affair.
Hillary should answer the question concerning the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ not Chelsea. Children, even adult children should never be ‘fair game’ even when campaigning for their parents. There are some things that should be off limits.
I do however agree with Chris above when he states that one cannot run away from ‘family history’ and “her father should have at least made her aware of that when she went on the campaign trail to support her mother’s presidential run.”
..and NO I am not supporting Hillary.
Apr 1, 2008 - 11:33 am 9. Hotpatch 6:I could not agree more with the general concept that the children of candidates for elective office should be “Off Limits” to the press (and embarrassing scrutiny)with one exception: If those “children” are actually adults who are actively promoting, or participating in, their parents candidacy. Then all bets are off and the “kid” becomes fair game. Chelsea has thrown her lot, as an adult, with her mother’s political campaign, so she can be asked anything. If she doesn’t like it, them she is free to leave!!
Apr 1, 2008 - 12:03 pm 10. Stone:Well said, Mr. Chapin. To continue off on a tangent of reason succumbing to emotion, consequently the body politic will destabilize to the point of chaos, unruliness, and violence. It is by means of reason that a civilized people define and maintain their peaceful boundaries amongst each other. Maintaining these boundaries is human instinct, both intellectually and viscerally, as well as constitutionally recognized and sanctified. Stripped of reasonable means of interaction and coexistence to maintain their innate individual boundaries Americans might well constitutionally resort to their “right to bear arms” to do so. Such action would of course be a defensive reaction, not aggression. It would not be for the pursuit of domination, but merely for the right to be left alone in an unviolated boundary.
History is often not linear and predictable. If an amazing president like Ronald Reagan was almost assassinated in 1981 when he began to apply the strong medicine of recession to realign debt and equity in America, while calling the morally and financially bankrupt bluff of the USSR, I certainly don’t envy the era that the next president will face.
Apr 1, 2008 - 12:13 pm 11. scott:Lets see “Mortimers an Idiot”
Apr 1, 2008 - 12:18 pm 12. David:Hmm..”entitlement” ah “MSM” “left-wing nutbag” “misquoted” and “harmony and kumbayah”.I think that about covers it.The sum intellectual total of a daily diatribe that may be employed across all ideological boundries with a few simple tweaks.You know:”right-wing nutbag” “harmony and free markets” etc..My what a full life we lead.
Chapin writes like a student trying to remember all of his SAT words. Too bad he’s a moron underneath all the elevated vocabulary. Had Mr. Strange asked Chelsea if Hillary had re-evaluated her “right-wing conspiracy” conclusions, then Chapin might have a point. Chapin says, “No doubt the young Democrat wondered if Senator Clinton would ever repent her delusional attacks of yesteryear regarding the political right.” (By the way, it’s not so delusional according to some sources. See, e.g., John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience). But that’s a different debate).
Apr 1, 2008 - 1:28 pm 13. Elle:But while there’s no doubt in Chapin’s mind, that’s not what Strange asked and it’s not so obvious that that’s what Strange meant. Strange asked about how Hillary Clinton handled the Lewinsky scandal. That’s a totally different queston from Chapin’s self-serving translation and demands a lot more than just an evaluation of whether there’s a right-wing conspiracy.
I had the same reaction as Chapin when I read of Chelsea Clinton’s response. Certainly the question brought back an emotional time in the life of the Clinton family as well as the American public. However, her response was more smart ass than smart. How a candidate handles stress is certainly the business of the voters.
Apr 1, 2008 - 1:33 pm 14. Xanthippe:Yes, Chelsea is an adult, but she is also the child of the candidate, and was a child during what must have been for her a very painful episode of American history.
Only a boor could find her riposte irrational and her non-answer inexplicable.
Get a grip. You really need a question like that answered? It’s not just being asked to make the candidate look bad? Then ask the candidate for only the candidate can truly answer that question.
The questioner’s lucky he didn’t get a sock in the nose.
How’s that for irrational?
(Disclaimer: I’m not supporting Clinton or Obama).
Apr 1, 2008 - 1:52 pm 15. Paulnashtn:I am a original Clinton basher but to ask Chelsea Clinton about Monica Lewinsky is inappropriate and in bad taste. The ONLY person that should be asked a question about her reaction to Monica Lewinsky should be Hillary herself — noone else
Apr 1, 2008 - 2:16 pm 16. marybel:And until SHE addresses that question, you can question her forthrightness — if you didn’t already
While I am in no way a Hillary supporter, I do agree that Chelsea should have been better prepared to answer questions of this nature than her snotty “none of your business” retort. As a mature young adult daughter she could have said: “Look, let’s get real about all this. I love both my parents dearly. My father, a pretty good president overall, really was very wrong with that whole Monica thing. He had a problem for years. My mother, however, was heroic in her decision to hold our family together. Because of that tenacity and determination, and that I believe she has some pretty good ideas for America, I think she’d be a better president than even my dad, and that’t why I am campaigning for her.”
Apr 1, 2008 - 3:08 pm 17. George Beinhorn:Period. Polka dot.
Why didn’t those imbecilic parents, the world’s best, smartest politicians, not prepare her better?
Sorry to see pajamasmedia reveling self-righteously in underpants journalism. Complacent scribblers.
Apr 1, 2008 - 5:14 pm 18. Dark Helmet:We all do the best we can with what we have to work with. It is unfortunate for Chelsea that her parents both gave her so little resources in terms of integrity and decency in parenting.
Character does matter and the lack of it from the clintons continues to pollute our waters.
How ironic that “it’s none of your business ” is the correct answer hillary should of given just before those cruise missles to no where were launched.
We will only ever have to suffer as big a bunch of idiots that we will tolerate.
Apr 1, 2008 - 6:43 pm 19. Doc LMNO:It seems that the sense of entitlement extends to people who disagree with Mr. Chapin as well.
David said:
“Chapin writes like a student trying to remember all of his SAT words. Too bad he’s a moron underneath all the elevated vocabulary”
George Beinhorn said:
“Sorry to see pajamasmedia reveling self-righteously in underpants journalism. Complacent scribblers.”
These examples are not all that decide to bully Mr. Chapin without actually critically analyzing his writing but it’s enough to see that when he gets their ire up they have no hesitation to “flame-on”.
Are the angry post-ers entitled to write what they wish here? Yes.
Are they entitled to be taken seriously unless they make a real argument? No.
Apr 1, 2008 - 7:26 pm 20. Mortimer:Wow, my critic can read my mind and knows I support HRC, cause I am so stupid I didn’t know that. My point is, to my esteemed critic, is that if you are a petty little piece of garbage, trash like this is big news. But since I am not a bottom feeding anti-intellectual robot like you, this cheap blog shot sounds like a, cheap blog shot.
Apr 1, 2008 - 7:34 pm 21. Mortimer's an idiot:Ow. The left comes out, though actually without swearing. I applaud your control. However, the name-calling is there, and actually at a higher level than the standard trolls.
Glad to know that an anti-intellectual robot could pose questions neither you nor Scott could answer, nor punctuate correctly in your feeble responses.
Bottom line is that it is totally funny that the HRC campaign would get so much negative publicity out of something that could have been handled better. Nobody is surprised through this campaign season at the depths HRC and her lackeys will stoop to when smearing former supporters or crush outside opinion. Mr. Strange should feel happy to be in such good company. Well, now he will support Obama, like everyone else. And with another small battle lost, the HRC campaign continues to implode. You guys need to mellow, it’s happening no matter how angry you get. Join the other side.
Apr 1, 2008 - 8:33 pm 22. ElliotNC:Relax, Mortimer… your critic is none other than the author himself, posing as a reader.
If you look this guy up, you will find that he puts himself in front of a video camera and posts unintelligible ravings, a la Charles Manson.
He is a delusional, Libertarian crackpot (put those last three descriptors in any order) who falls below the level that what one might expect to find on Pajamasmedia.
Apr 1, 2008 - 9:00 pm 23. ElliotNC:You’ve been outed, Mr. Chapin (AKA Mortimer’s an idiot).
Apr 2, 2008 - 5:24 am 24. Pappione:Wow! Was this originally a one-paragraph story written with a thesaurus? Talk about being wordy! Have you shown your English teacher your work lately?
I am not even an HRC fan, but between believing that Chelsea’s response was appropriate, and reading this literary sub-complishment, I just had to offer my two bits.
Good luck with your “writing” career!
Apr 2, 2008 - 2:05 pm 25. JuanLA:“Hillary Clinton once publicly denounced the Lewinsky affair to be a right-wing conspiracy. This turned out not to be the case. When asked about it recently, her daughter said “I do not think this is any of your business”. This is arrogant, and it shows how emotion is more important than reason nowadays in politics. Hillary puts the blame on others, when she is not doing so well. Her daughter Chelsea should understand that not everybody can always be nice to her. Worse, Chelsea said, she had been to many gatherings, but this was the first time this question had been asked her. This does not mean, however, that it cannot be asked! Chelsea does not seem to be disturbed by all this. There exists a mock poster which reads “Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else.”. This is a good advice for Chelsea.”
I like this website. It is very humorous. Keep it up guys !
Apr 2, 2008 - 5:12 pm 26. JuanLA:oops, forgot.
Apr 2, 2008 - 5:15 pm 27. ddc:hasta 1 abril 2009 !
With parents like Bill & Hill it’s a wonder she didn’t run as far as she could.
The question in question was tacky and tabloid-tastic only a d0uche would ask. Shame.
Apr 2, 2008 - 6:14 pm 28. Elliott's an idiot:Nice try, loser. Try again. Did you loons know that it was the left side of the blogosphere that invented sock puppetry? Look it up. I am not Mr. Chapin. I’m sure he would answer you directly if he though you were worth answering.
I’m just having a little fun with you. Two minutes of typing, hours of Mortimer pulling what’s left of his little remaining hair out! Good times.
Apr 3, 2008 - 6:58 am 29. lee:who care what she thinks about anything, her opinions are important because??
Apr 4, 2008 - 4:03 am 30. nottoobrite:Now as my name implies I am not too brite, but it seems to me that there are to many unanswered questions in the Clinton stables for them to control the betting, Quote ” I (Hillary) am in constant contact with Al Gore and there will be a place in my administration for him,” But Hillary according to Al Gore we are all going to fry. you ant got time.
Apr 6, 2008 - 12:26 pm 31. Jay:Funny stuff.Rootless cosmopolitan pseudo-intellectuals who can’t get over the fact that a columnist has an opinion yet alone a reasonable command of the english language claiming to be progressives. What ever happened to free speech Menachem or Mortimer or whatever you are calling yourself this century? I’m sure you would rather read the inspiring prose of the Reverends Jackson or Sharpton to assuage your pathetic white guilt but neither of those two subhumans can spell. No more blood for Israel.
Apr 11, 2008 - 9:30 am 32. Pajamas Media » Saving the Males From the NY Times:[...] parading these folie à deux is an appeal to conformity, but fallacious contentions are endemic to Big Media nowadays. Progressives use conformity — [...]
Jul 2, 2008 - 1:40 am 33. Wang:Speaking of Chelsea Clinton:
There is bad news about her father.
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. Moreover, there are innumerable copies in very many countries around the world.)
Mar 18, 2009 - 5:52 pm_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.