An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Judge Not the Presidential Daughters For Their Fathers, But No Free Passes, Okay?

01aachelseaa.jpg

Oops! It happened again – Chelsea Clinton was asked about the Monica Lewsinky scandal while stumping for her mother.

There is some unanimity among mainstream media pundits and bloggers, including some who have been otherwise critical of Hillary and Bill Clinton, that such questions should be off limits. Their reasoning, such as it is, is that Chelsea was a teenager at the time, she surely has attained some sense of closure by now, and the whole subject is . . . well, yucky.

I beg to differ – up to a point.

The children of presidents should not be blamed for their fathers’ failures, or for that matter praised for their achievements. But if they choose to become players in campaigns or otherwise promote themselves they become fair game for reasonable questions from the news media.

Hillary and Bill Clinton did an admirable job of shielding Chelsea from the press when she was First Daughter and the press largely acquiesced. But she has chosen to become an active participant in the 2008 presidential campaign and should not be given a free pass.

Laura and George Bush are doing an admirable job of shielding daughters Barbara and Jenna from the press and beyond some self-inflicted bad publicity, the press largely acquiesced.

Neither has been active participants in their father’s administration, but should that have changed when Jenna went out on tour last year to promote Ana’s Story: A Journal of Hope, a young adult’s book that she co-authored?

Yes, as I argued here, because the book was being promoted as the work of the president’s daughter and the likelihood that it would have been published in the first place if she was just another elementary school teacher is not great.

Ana’s Story is a true account of the struggles and triumphs of a Latin American teenager born HIV-positive, not a true account of being in the White House on 9/11 or flying over New Orleans with her father after Hurricane Katrina. But that did not mean that Jenna was not fair game for questions about her father.

As it was, interviewers did ask Jenna what she thought about the Iraq war, among other topics. She could have brushed the questions aside, but answered with circumspection that nobody wants war, her father included.

The Iraq war is pretty yucky, too, but it was an appropriate topic for a question as was Jenna’s answer.

There is an unfortunate confluence of circumstances in the case of Chelsea and Monica.

Hillary Clinton has pretty much gotten a free ride concerning the Lewinsky scandal, which was one of the defining event of the Clinton co-presidency and American political history. The yuck factor notwithstanding, she needs to address that event, most notably how she apparently was able to forgive her husband and be a key player in his defense when he was impeached.

Hillary Clinton is more than fair game as a self described hands-on First Lady. Chelsea Clinton also is fair game, but only within the context that Jenna Bush was fair game. She can choose to brush aside questions about the Lewinsky scandal, as she has been doing, but that does not mean that the questions should not be asked.

Photograph by Reuters

  • Marlowecan
    Interesting post...and a complicated question.

    Politicians use their children as props all the time. However, I thought twisting Sen. Obama's reference to his daughters to beat him over the head recently was very repugnant for some reason. Maybe it is a matter of age and their being young.

    But then...re. Cheney's lesbian daughter...there was an "Ick" factor as both Kerry & Edwards in the debates went out of their way to praise Cheney's daughter -- in a transparent ploy to roil evangelicals and homophobic GOPers.

    However, HRC has gotten a free ride in the sense of being a feminist icon yet complicit in threatening and silencing women (re. Sidney Blumenthal's nasty little efforts to attack, threaten, suppress the various women that Bill boffed).

    Yet, asking Chelsea about Daddy's Hound Dog behaviour has an "Ick" quality about it. At least I think so.

    Interesting post. Where do we draw the line?
  • Amanda
    I agree that there's no reason why the press can't ask Chelsea whatever they want to. But she has an equal right to tell them to shove it when they ask a rude question. She may be an active member of her mother's campaign, and as such she should be able to defend Hillary's positions and promote her agenda. But why does that also mean we should expect her to respond in any other way to questions about something that was probably very confusing and painful when she was a teenager and, as Marlowecan said, has to be icky to talk about now?
  • Lynx
    You may want to change that to "LAURA and George Bush have done an admirable job" since I'm guessing grandma Barbara doesn't have as much to do with it.

    As to the actual subject at hand, I agree, to a point. I agree that Chelsea is an adult who has chosen to take on a political role and therefore should be treated as such. I've written that many in the media seem to still think that Chelsea is a young teen who is totally out of bounds. That no longer holds water.

    I disagree about the sex scandal though. I think it shouldn't be an issue in the campaign at all. I thought it was irrelevant then and I continue to think it was irrelevant now. It should have never become a national scandal, and the fact we had congressional hearings on the subject is an embarrasment. As such, I don't think it's appropriate to bring it up in this campaign, especially considering that it's not the philanderer but the philandered that's running, and it's supremely poor taste to do it to a woman who was a teen at the time and for whom the subject must be emotional. I don't think Chelsea should be protected like a child from tough questions, but I think that, as an adult, it's an inappropriate question.
  • runasim
    Expressing myself in the kicking and biting, forceful way Shaun often uses, I think that all those bringing up the blue dress are acting like lowlifes willing to stoop so low that when they look at the world, they are looking at it upside down.

    That particular politically motivated 'scandal' made us a laughing stock in Europe,, and I would have laughed along with them if it weren't so painful to laugh at my own country. .

    To bring it up again after all these years is just sick.
    I hope the Clinton speech writers give Chelsea a few choice phrases with which to answer the questions of juvenile reporters fixated on sex.

    There is a distinct aura of the thrill of voyeurism in media and blog coverage of sex scandals. I wish these people would just grow up.
    t

    .
  • shaun
    Lynx:

    Thank you for pointing out the error. Fixed.

    Lynx and Runasim:

    I believe that the Ken Starr investigation without end and the impeachment trial were unnecessary, expensive and distracting circuses. But the president did what he did and his wife seems to not only have gotten over it very quickly, but put on that lawyerly hat in a heartbeat and was instrumental in crafting a defense.

    By your calculus Eliot Spitzer should still be New York governor and Larry Craig should not resign, to name two pungent contemporary examples.

    Selectively ignoring history doesn't cut it.
  • Lynx
    Eliot Spitzer and Larry Craig shouldn't have to resign for being unfaithful to their wives, but because they engaged in unlawful activities. In Craig's case, not even that much, since his violation was legally minor.

    In both Spitzer and Craig's case what brought them down was the hypocrisy charge, since Spitzer was Mr law and order, while Craig is part of a list of "family values" politicians caught "in the gay" that's so long it's almost it's own demographic.

    However, though we are all evolved equal, I think the position of POTUS, or comparatively essential roles in government, merit special treatment. You don't grind a country to a standstill by forcing a governer or senator to resign, but the president is another matter. Bringing the president to task for something that is merely icky is not warranted if the cost is taking much needed attention away from actual important stuff.

    ps: I may be blind, but I still see "barbara" lol
  • Lynx
    My bad, it's because I hadn't refreshed, sorry.
  • CStanley
    Lynx, although it's tiring to constantly rehash, I feel duty bound to mention that the impeachment of Clinton was also over unlawful behavior. A case could certainly be made about hypocrisy too, since the Democratic party is supposed to espouse ideals of feminism which would run contrary to Bill's frequent indulgences to lust.

    I agree with you over the relative damage to the country over a presidential impeachment though, and for that reason I think it was wrong for the GOP to proceed with it. Sometimes even when someone could be prosecuted or impeached, it's better to refrain if the outcome of that is going to harm the country's interests. There's evidence that some of the distraction affected our ability to deal with the growing threat from al Qaeda, for example. For similar reasons, I think that Gore was wrong to pursue his case in the FL election vote counts, because of how the shortened transition time affected the ability of the new administration to interact with the outgoing one in ways that might have better informed them (all of that is in the 9/11 commission report, BTW, and it's an indictment on various people in both parties, based on hindsight, of course.)
  • shaun
    CStanley:

    A cogent sum-up.

    While I believe that there are ample grounds to impeach Cheney and probably Bush as well, I have long maintained that would be an enormously divisive distraction, to which I inevitably add that history will be the harshest judge.

    Same for the Clinton's, too.
  • runasim
    What Lynx said, double strength!.

    And now you bring Hillary into it? Shame on you. That's the most sexist position I've heard. Is the wife always to blame for the husband's sexual philandering?

    By holding the family together and thinking of what's best for Chelsea, she should be praised as the family values person in this whole charade.
    Practising the kind of 'insight' demonstrated in repeat attack blog posts, I propose that Bill's excesses in support of Hillary are, to a large degree, a recognition of what he owes her and a reaction to the unwarranted attacks on her before she had a chance to open to her mouth.
  • runasim
    While CStanley's comment is a sum-up of sorts, it is laced with poisonous partisan barbs, unnessary and inapropriate, IMO.

    >It is totally unneccessary to insert a 'most hypocritical' contest into a post about Chelsea and the press. Do we really need to have a partisan slug fest as part of every topic? There are such things as philosophical discussions possible.

    > the first principle of true feminism is the right to choose, not a code for what to do when. Hillary practised feminism in spades, when she made her PERSONAL choices about how to deal with a PERSONAL problem. She, was, then an exemplar of Democratic principles.

    >The 'evidence' for the distraction the scandal provided to Clinton's execution of his job is of the same kind as the 'evidence' that Bush is stupid. There is contradiction, there are personal egos involved, there is partisan meme, and there are opportunities to improve one's fortunes by writing provocative books and making provocative statemtns on cable news.
  • Lynx
    runasin, CStanley can correct me if I'm wrong, but the feminist comment had very little to do with Hillary and a lot to do with Monica. It's not that Hillary staying with Bill is anti-feminist, but that the relationship between Monica and Bill involved a serious power difference, and many people think that he abused his position over her, a mere intern.

    Personally I don't agree, and think Monica was very probably fully willing, not coerced, but I can see where some people would think so.

    Incidentally, disagreeing is not necessarily being partisan, and if you think CStanley is partisan, you've been hanging out at moderate sites far too long lol.
  • superdestroyer
    A better series of question for Chesea would be about hedge funds, corporate pay rates, and the differences in life opportunities between the rich and everyone else. She would not be able to stand in front of a crowd and talk about her mother while saying that such things are none of their business.
  • CStanley
    Lynx: Exactly right on my comment about hypcrisy and feminism-it had nothing to do with Hillary's decision to stay with Bill. I neither know nor care how Hillary made her decision to forgive Bill, and it's none of my business. Actually one point where you aren't quite correct is in saying my comment was about Monica- I was actually referring to the whole pattern of behavior by Bill, which showed complete objectification of women IMO.

    As far as runasim's complaint toward me, I'm curious why I end up getting criticized for entering into a discussion already in progress about comparisons of hypocrisy and scandals in both parties?
  • runasim
    Lynx,

    To see Monica as being victimized in a feminist sense would mean that her job was at stake if she resisted his advances. I remember her writing somewhere that she actively pursued the relationship, however. I think it was more a case of love spurned (being called 'that woman' ) than a helpless damsel in distress
    Part of true feminism is also taking responsibility for one's actions, at least that's the kind of feminist sensitiviy I was born with and have stuck with through my life.

    As for partisanship, I expect it when the topic is politics or an issue over which the parties are in conflict. Even then, debates work better when participants stay on topic and refrain from dragging in all the partisan dirty laundry.
    I absolutely resent it when the topic is more philosophical. The introduction of extraneous memes just drags everything down.
    I do look aggressively for moderate blogs and for moderate commenterary. I hate in when such an oasis is invaded by snipes and barbs; they're crashing my safehouse. Then I re-activate my curmudgeon status, and that's not good.
  • CStanley
    My personal feeling about Monica is that a better man than Bill would have noticed that she was love struck and star struck at getting attention from the POTUS, and would have felt obliged to tactfully reject advances in an attempt to spare her from the public humiliation that she eventually had to face (or even to spare her from obvious heartbreak.) If that is anti-feminist because it implies that men should be chivalrous enough to be protective of much younger women- particularly when a man is in a position to inspire star struckedness- then so be it (I'm not a feminist anyway.)

    But again, my comment was more to do with Bill's long string of women than with Monica in particular.
  • I think some here are missing a key point in this story. Chelsea was not asked the question by "the press" in either case. Both times, she was speaking at a university and was questioned by a student. A young college student is entitled to ask anything she pleases, right? Whether it's tacky or not, students are not honor bound by an invisible code of media conduct. Some here appear to be portraying this as "the big bad media."
  • runasim
    CStanley,
    If feminism is going to be the issue here, then let's talk about that,. It's a man-woman issue, not a party issue. One form of blatant sexism is the uproar caused when a first lady takes up causes outside of the prescribed women's issues. She can decorate (Jackie) and she can educate (Laura), but being a lawyer was seen as dangerous from the very start. I remember the outrage in some circles even before Clinton took office.

    If hypocrisy is the issue, then let's talk about that. Everyone knows perfectly well that a President will talk policy with his wife. Have you seen the John Adams series? But in the US. especially among conservatives, that fact of life can't be openly admitted or demonstrated. The 'little woman' has to know her place.
    I accept the 'she was not elected' argument, but I also know that many first ladies do more than just coo on their bedroom pillows. (no double entendre intended)..
    The abhorrence of an open admission of that is very sexist, indeed.

    Finally, making Bill Clinton the symbol of anti-feminism really misses the whole point. of feminism, that women can make their own choices in how to deal with a situation.
    Why are some men (and an increasing number of women) unfiaithful and insensitive to their partners? Pick a theory, and you'll find a shelf full of books supporitn it. Pick another theory, and find another shelf. The point being, that Bill Clinton is a person, not a Party, it's his personal psychology that led him down his path. This being a personal matter, it was a matter for the persons involved to settle iamong them, and that is a true feminist interpretation and also of the Democratic Party.
    An important corollary, is the issue of seduction. Women are not always innocent bystancers in these situations. They are often active participants. Why not ask to whatt extent Bill C was victimized by seduction?
    There are some advocates of maslulanism now, who might be interested to chime in.

    If you're going to introduce all these isms, then inroduce them across the board, no just to pillory selected people.
  • CStanley
    Well, just as I didn't hold Lynx to the impossible standard of naming every possible related charge of hypocrisy, I don't see why my omission of some possible examples of it should be cause for such criticism. When Lynx said that there was hypocrisy involved in the cases of Spitzer and Craig (and she was implying that this made it different than the Clinton impeachment) I simply pointed out that that distinction wasn't really as clear as she was making it out to be. When noted, she seemed to get my point if not completely agree with it.

    As to your specific examples of hypocrisy, I agree with some but not all of them. The first part- neither I nor anyone I knew had a problem with Hillary Clinton being an attorney (I have a post graduate degree myself.) Seems like any issues with that were more generational than partisan, but that's my view.

    The second example, people having a problem with Hillary's extensive involvement. That was never a huge issue to me, though because of the nonelected nature of the position of First Lady I generally think that the role shouldn't cross too clearly into policies that are under contention among the electorate (and HC did cross that with healthcare, though I never thought that was that big of a deal because I didn't see that she was doing something that was contrary to what Bill himself would do.)

    As to the third part, I agree about the responsibilities for sexual relationships going both ways. I happen to believe that when one person in the relationship is much older or in a position of power though, that that person bears a little more responsibility. That doesn't mean I give a free pass to women or deny that they're sometimes guilty of their own form of power plays in sexual relationships.

    Anything else?
  • runasim
    "Anything else?"
    Yes.

    I don't think topics like feminism should ever be argued on the back of one person, unless we know an awful lot of details, those being different that gosspi and innuendo......because of overarching statemetns like this:

    "I happen to believe that when one person in the relationship is much older or in a position of power though, that that person bears a little more responsibility."

    Put an aging, stressed out male and a lusccious young sex-kitten in the same room, and I'm not at all sure who has the most power.

    I was a young woman at one time, and I was perfectly aware of the unfair advantage I had when dealing with some males. Once...well, never mind.

    The point is to avoid STREOTYPES..
    And read Lolita.
  • CStanley
    LOL, OK, I don't disagree with that either- but it's the overgeneralization where things go awry, not the generalization itself. IOW, I still think the basic principle remains that a sexual relationship that isn't predatory has to be based on either a relative amount of parity or mutual care that the discrepancies aren't exploited.
  • runasim
    CStanley,
    But how do you know who exploited whom? People play off each other in complicated ways. It may even be that they exploited each other, or traded roles. from day to day. And when the wife doesn't know, can it sometimes be that she doesn't want to know?

    The point is that we have no business playing psychoanalyst, judge and jury about a public figure of whom we have no persoanl knowlege. Only the people involved, who do know can do that.

    You've described a perfect relationship, but not all realtionships are perfect. Then there are a lot choices: accept and adjust; try to change'; leave; etc,
    For some couples, this may not even be the perfect realtionsip. One might prefer to follow while the other leads. There is security, prestige and a host of other considerations. Again: outsiders have no business judging.. WE WEREN'T THERE, so we have no idea what the dynamics were.
  • CStanley
    Of course, runasim, and that's always why one shouldn't judge other people. For the most part, I'd give people the benefit of the doubt, and for the most part, unless it's a relationship that personally involves me or a close loved one, it's not my business. To some degree though, public figures make parts of their life public, and when there's a pattern of behavior that is evident like a series of women making complaints against a man or vice versa, it is going to affect perception of that person to some degree. I don't think the person's entire political career should hinge on that, but I do think that an overall pattern of seemingly bad behavior in personal relationships is fair game to color perceptions of a person's character somewhat- as long as we also weigh that against all other information about the person.

    My issues with feminism go deeper than this, certainly deeper than one example in the Clinton case. I stated above what I feel is the ideal to shoot for in sexual relationships (and yes, that's a perfection that no one achieves, but if you don't know what perfect looks like than what do you aim for?) I think that overall, feminists have been too concerned with giving permission for women to exploit men just as men have historically exploited women (and of course, some women have always done the exploiting too, but in general they pay a higher price for it.) Instead, I think the better approach would be to look toward a less selfish definition of sexuality and hold both genders accountable for behavior that seriously breaches that.

    Now, I imagine your reaction to that is to think that I mean that feminists should act as public scolds of men and women who are bad boys and girls, but that's not what I mean at all. I really am talking in the abstract, about the ideas which end up taking hold in our popular culture; I think the idea that has been sold is that women should be proud of sexuality, to the point that the seductive power that you mention is enabled beyond what it should be (it's been promoted as though this is always good, to be sexy enough to have power over men) and that in turn gives tacit permission for men to respond in kind. It's complicated, and I'm not even sure HOW I think the message that I believe is the healthier one should or could be sold, but it's definitely something I work on teaching my kids (and perhaps that's the only way, transmitting it to our children to counter the message they get everywhere else.)
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC