Yesterday, while campaigning for her mother at an Indianapolis college, Chelsea Clinton was asked if she thought her mother's credibility had been hurt by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. According to the story at MSNBC, Chelsea Clinton responded "bitterly," saying "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question, in the, maybe 70 college campuses that I've been to. And I don't think that's any of your business." I have a few problems with this story and with the comment. First, I've seen the clip, and I don't think her response is bitter. She is perhaps a bit annoyed at what is arguably a stupid question about what she likely views as a private, family matter. Second, I don't understand why reporter Lauren Applebaum feels it is necessary to point out that a male student asked this question. She is clearly implying something about the student because of his gender, but I'm not sure what exactly she is trying to get across.
As for the question, I'm not sure I understand it. How could Senator Clinton's belief in her husband have compromised her credibility? I understand that Senator Clinton could be seen as having lied to protect her husband; after all, she did adamantly deny his involvement with Lewinsky. But I'm not sure her denial can be construed as lying. In all the reading I've done about the Clintons (and I've read a fair amount about them), there is nothing that suggests that Senator Clinton had any knowledge of her husband's affair with Lewinsky until he confessed to her--less than 24 hours before he confessed to the country. Was she humiliated, embarrassed, and angry? She has publicly admitted experiencing all of these feelings and more. I don't understand, though, how her credibility could have been hurt. Believing in her husband, it seems to me, doesn't affect her ability to be a good senator or, potentially, a good president. It simply suggests that she wants to believe the best about people she loves, a quality that I think the majority of people I possess. The question, as I see it, is latently sexist (which is perhaps why Applebaum points out that the college student asking the question is male, but I doubt that is her reasoning). The question implies that Senator Clinton didn't perform her job as a wife very well and that she failed in her wifely duty to keep her husband's eye from straying.
How is one supposed (especially Chelsea Clinton) supposed to answer such a question? Instead of questioning the validity of the question, which I think is something that we really need to do when people ask fairly stupid questions like this, we end up questioning the response and mislabeling said response as bitter or angry. I was always told that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but I think this is an example of a stupid question.
10 comments:
great post. I completely agree with you. This is exactly how I read the question:
"The question implies that Senator Clinton didn't perform her job as a wife very well and that she failed in her wifely duty to keep her husband's eye from straying."
Can I add that I don't get the commentary at the beginning of that clip. He points out that she takes questions from the public, not the media..."presumably to avoid tough questions about things like family history, which is exactly what someone asked her."
The implication is that she's avoiding the media because she doesn't want to face up to the real issues and it's a comment that implicitly praises the questioner for asking a tough question, the kind of question a professional would have come up with. I think her response--which I didn't think sounded bitter, either--would have held up for a reporter because I just don't think it's appropriate.
Vocabulary of the day: Cucquean.
Who can trust such a horned fool?
I didn't get the commentary either, but I chalked it up, at least in part, to the tabloid nature of our culture.
When I visited MSNBC, there were updates that discussed how the person who asked the question attempted to provide Chelsea with a question to show her strength. But, because of the vagueness of the question, Chelsea told took the question in another direction as she should (the first rule of answering questions is answer the question you wanted to be asked and not the question you were asked.)
however, there could in fact be many ways in which her belief in her husband could compromise Senator Clinton's credibility, such as the constitutionality of the former President Clinton's act and whether or not she supported an unconstitutional act. Also, whether or not Senator Clinton "lied" (and I am not saying she did not did not) plays into the larger Clintonian narrative of lying or embellishment, which would counter our country's belief in the virtue of "honesty" and that presidents need to be honest. Both the unconstitutionality or the lying may alter the perception as to whether or not Senator Clinton would be a good president (as we do not like the current president because he violates the constitution and has not been honest). But, even I do not read this into the question because of the additional evidence from the intent of the person asking the question per MSNBC.
Of course, because of the additional evidence, I do not believe this is sexist (not that I would have read it as being sexist in the first place. But my terministic screens focus on other categories) and has nothing to do with her being a good wife.
Unfortunately, the question as asked, is not clear.
As for the commentary at the beginning of the clip, this has been an interesting issue as a public figure on the campaign trial does not receive public scrutiny. There seems to be a problem that when a person is out campaigning for another that his/her claims cannot be challenged by people in position to challenge them.
Personally, I do not think that certain aspects of the Monica incident should be public. The constitutionality, yes; the affair, no. But, I also believe that other personal views need not be public. But public issues need to be discussed and scrutinized by those that campaign.
Issues of sexism and legality aside, I just think there are some things that are below the belt. Asking someone about her father's affair and its affect on her mother is one of those things.
Not stupid-- there are questions Hillary has never answered--like, was she part of the team that geared up to smear Monica before the blue dress was found? Remember, it was Hillary railing away about a right wing conspiracy.
She is the one who has been using the victim card--fair question to ask if that was as true as , say, snipers.
The Clinton campaign has a total hands-off policy regarding Chelsea-- no interviews, no questions from the press.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If she is out campaigning for her mother, she is subject to the same rules that apply to any surrogate of the candidate.
Still, it's nice to see the Clintons so protective of their 28 year old daughter.
If you can't ask Chelsea a question without the Clintons going ballistic, just think what they would have done if, when she was say a 22 year old intern, the 49 year old CEO of the company used her as a sexual toy?
Too bad they forgot that Monica was somebody else's 22 year old daughter when Bill took advantage and the whole Clinton team geared up to destroy her--until the blue dress evidence made that smear campaign pointless.
Red Mind, you make a very compelling point about Chelsea and Monica, and solon often rails on me with the notion that Chelsea has made herself a public figure and, as such, must be open to questions just like any other surrogate. It's funny, I think it's ridiculous that Bill and Hillary are so protective. I just want to be protective of her, myself! She didn't choose to be a Clinton, after all. And while there are a lot of benefits of having her last name, I'd imagine there have been a hell of a lot of heartaches because of it over the years, as well.
I think that the bottom line, here, as Megs pointed out, is that neither Chelsea nor Hillary should be expected to comment on something as personal as Bill's affair (which, by the way, has nothing to do with this campaign as far as I can tell).
I get all these points, and I do not think that Chelsea Clinton is except from being questioned now that she has chosen to put herself in the public eye. But I still think this is a stupid question, and here's why: the question is vague and poorly worded. Had the questioned even hinted at any of the constitutional issues that Solon and Red point out, I would see it as valid and worth answering. But as it was asked, the question was only going to illicit the response it did--a response that I don't think was bitter, which it is being portrayed as.
Post a Comment