Chelsea’s write-ups have been write-arounds: she still refuses to do press interviews, Team Clinton’s logic being, as The Nation’s John Nichols put it, “that the daughter of the candidate could…handle questions from crowds but not from journalist—apparently on the theory that the journalists would be indelicate.” And on the specific assumption, Nichols wrote, “that a reporter would have asked Chelsea Clinton about her father’s affair with a White House intern.”
Yeah—at some point, one probably would. But why should that be such a problem? Why, really, should the press treat Chelsea differently than they do other campaign surrogates?
You could say, on the one hand, that Chelsea’s is a particular case demanding a particular brand of reportorial delicacy, that the kid gloves befit someone who—on the campaign trail, at least—is playing the role of, well, a kid. (“My Mom” is perhaps the most common utterance Chelsea makes on the stump.) Still, it seems to me, a surrogate’s a surrogate. When Chelsea chose to stump for her mother, she effectively relinquished her right to be sheltered from the press’s spotlight, uncomfortable questions and all. If her surrogacy makes a campaign issue of Hillary-Clinton-as-Wife-and-Mother, in particular, then it’s only fair to ask her questions about the very issue she’s raised. (And the corollary to Hillary-as-Wife is Monica-as-Mistress.) No question should be off-limits, for Chelsea or any other campaigner—as long as those being questioned reserve their right to a “no comment.” A surrogate who is allowed to speak without push-back from the press skews the checks and balances of campaign-trail discourse. Even when that surrogate’s name is Chelsea.
Or you could say that having been to 70 universities without anyone raising the subject the pause was because, to her, it was unexpected. It sat outside the norm of what she had grown accustomed to. Her response, however, was perfect.
Posted by Doug Alder
on Wed 26 Mar 2008 at 09:00 PM
I remember during that period that people, many of whom stated that they were parents, were concerned about the exposure that their young children were getting to the term "oral sex".
If the person asking that question of Clinton were of average college age, they would have been in grade school in 1998.
I wonder what college age people think about this topic.
Posted by John
on Thu 27 Mar 2008 at 02:42 PM
How is it that the question whether Hillary Clinton's credibility was compromised by the Monica Lewinski affair is none of a voter's business? Why was it that no one at Butler University thought to ask that? Didn't Harry Truman say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"? Little Miss Muffet is no longer a child and she should no longer be treated like one. She's fair game, as is anyone else acting as a Presidential candidate's surrogate on the stump.
Posted by horace
on Thu 27 Mar 2008 at 02:49 PM
I'm not sure what the to-do is about. She took the question, whether truly startled or feigned, and responded. The links you provided said she gave a "quick retort."
Posted by mcg
on Sat 29 Mar 2008 at 01:22 AM
I fail to see what this column is about other than an opportunity to fit the slot of the stereotypical GenX female journalist, a slot whose dimensions were set once Maureen Dowd signed on at the newspaper-of-record. Is this dustup something we should genuinely care about, or simply something offering (a presumptively female writer) an opportunity to refer to the supposed inauthenticities of female Clintons and to rehearse the "pimping out" turn of phrase? The Q & A under the microscope is not, after all, one of the great moments of campaign history.)
[ 'the gloves befit' someone is an awkward choice: 'the kid gloves treatment befits' perhaps?]
Posted by citygal
on Sat 29 Mar 2008 at 01:58 AM