The Chelsea Question
When does she deserve public scrutiny?
By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in 2008 | 2008 Democratic Primary | Bill Clinton | Chelsea Clinton | Hillary Clinton — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My employers at Stop Her Now made an early decision to not make fun of Chelsea Clinton in the satire they produce. Besides questions about taste, it is clearly an area fraught with risk. Better to leave it alone. And I have followed this advice in my own blogging on Hillary.
But the recent contretemps about David Shuster's comments raises the issue in a different context (as Alex has noted). An article at Slate makes a compelling argument that journalists should re-think their approach to Chelsea even in the face of the Hillary campaign's attempt to punish Shuster and MSNBC and use it to their advantage.
I realize I am not the first person to point this out, but could it be that Bill and Hillary's, in many ways understandable, reaction to Shuster's comments nevertheless disguise an attempt at political advantage? Guy Branum certainly thinks so and he makes a strong case.
More after the jump . . .
Here is the heart of Branum's argument:
The Clinton campaign is seeking a bulletproof spokesperson. Last year, the Edwards campaign made a similar move when it unleashed the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, as primary attack dog. She was a brilliant, articulate voice for the campaign, and all the more effective because her untreatable cancer diagnosis made her unassailable. You could question Elizabeth Edwards' policy arguments, but you couldn't attack her personally. (When John Dickerson questioned the deployment of Elizabeth in Slate, she responded indignantly.) Hillary's campaign tried to use Bill similarly after Iowa. The former president landed a few good blows before Hillary's New Hampshire win, but then went further in South Carolina and ended up alienating African-Americans, the Democratic establishment, and everyone who remembered just how divisive the last Clinton White House was.
The turn now to Chelsea is logical, but it's similarly destined to fail. When Bill was first elected, Chelsea was 12; treating her with special deference made sense. Now she's 28. She's old enough to vote, get drunk, and run for Congress. She's chosen to enter the political fray and campaign for her mom. That's cool, but Chelsea is also old enough to answer for the positions she's espousing and to be treated as any other national political figure. Last summer, Clinton campaign spokesperson Howard Wolfson told the New York Times that, "Even though President and Senator Clinton are public figures, their daughter is not." That's legally implausible and an impossible stance in the face of Chelsea's consistent presence on the campaign trail. Chelsea has been courting voters from Iowa to California, and soliciting the support of superdelegates over the phone. Yet she has the temerity to tell a 9-year-old reporter she's off limits. This is stupid.
[. . .]
Now that Chelsea is an adult who fiercely campaigns for the candidate she believes in, and in doing so exercises the precious right of free speech, we must have the corollary right to comment on her speech. This includes pointing out when her mom's campaign is using her in crass and opportunistic ways. Truly offensive, harshly sexualized, or racialized comments like we've seen in this campaign are wrong, and soon after being made are shouted down as such. David Shuster didn't do that; he used a common, if coarse, euphemism for the self-interested use of another person. The treatment of Chelsea Clinton as a special figure in American politics has to end. If she's shy, she should return to private life. If she wants to campaign for her mom, she should get our respect, but she must also expect our scrutiny.
I think this is exactly right. If Chelsea is going to be an active part of the campaign then she should be treated as such. How can she campaign for votes and make speeches and yet not be open to questions or even face the press in any way?
The whole debate over the term "pimped out" is beside the point and Shuster was stupid to allow such language to derail his valid point. Does anyone really think he was attempting to comment on Chelsea's sexuality? Of course not.
The bigger point is that the Clinton's are trying to use every possible weapon to win and avoid scrutiny to the greatest degree possible. Whenever a controversy arises the Clintons immediately play victim, blame the press, and seek to leverage it their advantage. That is exactly what is happening here.
I don't mean to imply that Chelsea should suddenly become fair game for whatever people want to throw at her. Or that vulgarity, however common, should be overlooked. Only that the Hillary campaign shouldn't be allowed to use the legitimate sympathy many feel toward Chelsea as leverage to attack the press and avoid scrutiny.
Obviously, conservatives have their own problems with the media. But we should not allow these disagreements to color our perspective. Every time the Clintons successfully brush back the media it lays the groundwork for more such intimidation come the general election.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Tuesday Open Thread — Comments (51) »
The Chelsea Question 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
within limits of good taste. I am all for satire in regards to candidates, office holders, and former office holders (although with restraint and common sense for the latter).
She is none of the above, but that doesn't mean she can't be asked tough questions about the policy positions that the candidate she endorses has.
Personally, I think there was an issue when Bill was President where the press gave Bill and Hillary too much discretion in regards to Chelsea. And that was their choice to send her to Sidwell Friends School at the time that they advocated against school vouchers. That drove me up the wall that they would not answer questions about that, and the press gave them a free pass.
This could be an issue again in this cycle: yesterday the LA Times had aneditorial advocation the conversion of all Middle and High Schools within the Los Angeles Unified School District into charter schools.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-breakup11feb11,0,70...
We should be pressing all the candidates to take a stand on this issue, and encourage the press to hold the Democrat's feet to the fire if they send their kids to private school.
She's part of the campaign the instant she started meeting with superdelegates. I can forgive her showing up at a polling station early in the morning with coffee; that was pretty innocuous -- but at the moment she starts meeting with superdelegates and talking about their votes she's in the public sphere.
She is not a public figure.
I never felt that Dick Cheney's family was fair game.
Nor is Chelsea Clinton.
So what if she's an adult now- she is not running for office.
A grown child of a candidate is not fair game in my mind.
Not even if they are helping in the campaign.
Chelsea Clinton is part of her mother's campaign and she's meeting with superdelegates in an attempt to influence their votes. That means she's a public figure, just as much as any other official Clinton representative. If the Clintons didn't want her to be in the public sphere, they shouldn't have allowed her to lobby for superdelegate votes in private meetings.
I would argue, yes she is. She's a rather famous adult woman, living on her own, making six figures at a hedge fund, taking a temporary leave to speak on behalf of her mother's campaign, and is trying to sway voters and bureaucrats to vote for her. Why is she not able to be questioned on her activities and opinions regarding her mother's candidacy? She answers questions of those people attending her forums on the trail. There's a choice here; you can either stay behind the scenes, hide from the press, and be quiet and not allow yourself to be questioned, or, you can get into the fray. There have been plenty of politician's off spring actively involved in their parents campaigns and have handled it quite well. Why should she be treated any differently?
She has chosen to make herself a public figure. She is making appearances on behalf of a candidate, she is soliciting votes on behalf of a candidate, she is part of the campaign. If she was off working someplace and not actively involved, that would be a different (or non-) story.
Branum's comment is stupid:
"The treatment of Chelsea Clinton as a special figure in American politics has to end. If she's shy, she should return to private life. If she wants to campaign for her mom, she should get our respect, but she must also expect our scrutiny."
Other than campaigning for her mother, what has she done to attract scrutiny? I thought/think/believe the attacks made on the Bush twins was beyond the pale. As far as I know, Chelsea doesn't even have a DUI on her record, not that it has anything to do with her parents' quest for the White House. Does someone expect her to suddenly embarrass her parents, as if the Clintons could be embarrassed? Is Chelsea going to be appointed to a cabinet position? Has Chelsea made secret contact with the Klan to discredit Obama?
Shuster did Chelsea and all of us a favor when he used "pimped out." His stupidity put her off limits for more stupid remarks. So the girl is loyal to her mother. So she is a liberal Democrat. Until she does something wrong, leave her alone. Her parents provide enough campaign fodder.
If Chelsea Clinton comes to your apartment tomorrow while you're a superdelegate to the DNC, will you consider it to be a private visit or something public? Nobody else in the world gets this kind of free pass, except Chelsea Clinton, for some reason that very few people can understand.
Now, I can guess that really what this is all about is a kind of nuclear option between Donks and R's that goes like this:
If you're going to call Chelsea a public figure, then you'd better not use your children's names when you donate to political campaigns.
That's what the rancor is really about. Happily I don't have children that I've used to donate to politicians, so I could care less. I've always thought it was a slippery slope, frankly. The only good argument for not considering Chelsea a member of her mother's campaign is that lots of other people will have to stop using their children as "campaign contributors...."
that is not illegal, immoral, or fattening, and I'm the wrong person to complain about "fattening". By definition, if she is campaigning, it's pretty public, so I don't care whose door she knocks on. Until she does something wrong, let her support her mother without personal attacks.
On a related note, Carolyn Kennedy endorsed Obama. "Kennedy" is a pretty public name. Should we start digging up old Kennedy dirt to attack her? I don't think so.
If I thought that Chelsea was going to be part of the kitchen cabinet, like Bill, then maybe. I don't think she will. If she starts race baiting like Bill, then go for it. I don't think she will.
Let kids support their parents without being attacked.
As far as I know, only my number 1 son has made a political donation. He donated to Fred, but he's 29 and he used his own money.
It's not the same thing as making a donation or talking on a blog. She's meeting in private with superdelegates and Barack's kids are too young to do it. It's unfair. Barack and Michelle's first baby Malia Ann was born in 1998 and she's not very good at superdelegate meetings.
Chelsea, on the other hand, is a grown woman now and the Clintons are most definitely taking advantage of her skills very publicly.
You keep using this word "attack" as if someone's making fun of Chelsea or something. May I ask, how is she being "attacked"? There's a big difference between making personal attacks vs. criticizing someone's political positions.
only that she is participating in her mother's campaign, specifically the manner in which she participates, talking to super delegates, campaigning on campuses, etc.
I am sure that she agrees with her mother's positions, but that has not been the context of any discussion that I have read. It's been about the Clinton machine pimping using Chelsea in ways that might be unseemly, or at least, questionable.
Is that true? Has Chelsea's involvement been so dramatic or personal that we can now question her character?
Obviously, all of this started with Shuster's pimping comment, but Branum appears to hint maybe it might be okay, if we don't actually use the "P" word. At least we can closely scrutinize Chelsea. But notice what he said about Elizabeth Edwards:
You could question Elizabeth Edwards' policy arguments, but you couldn't attack her personally.
He may have been saying that Elizabeth Edwards was actually a legitimate target for attacks on her husband, but I didn't see that in his statement. I think the statement is correct, and should be applied to Chelsea. And the Cheney family, and the Bush family, and the McCain family and any other person who supports the campaign of a family member.
If someone were to say that Chelsea is another liberal Democrat, like her mother and father, and like all of the liberal Democrats who support her mother, that's fine with me. But if that is said, it's not really worth saying, is it? The issue disappears. Chelsea only gets attention if her involvement is something greater, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.
So I think "heightened" scrutiny for Chelsea is an attack, or at least the threat of attack. Shuster's comments certainly were, and are consistent with attitudes of the cretins at MSNBC. Until Chelsea does something that is morally or legally questionable, no Republican should do anything to duplicate that attitude. Let the girl campaign for mama.
disclaimer: I will not vote for a Democrat in this race. I have nothing but disgust for the Clintons parents, individually and collectively. Hopefully the apple falls far from the tree in Chelsea. And I won't vote for Obama, even if the Republicans nominate Ron Paul, God help us all.
She's been very involved in the campaign. Campaigning for Hillary seems to be her full time job and has been for a while now. If she does something stupid on the campaign trail it should be covered the same way as if Chuck Norris did something stupid on the campaign trail.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The pimping jokes are beyond the pale, but I don't have a problem with her being scrutinized or her role (such as having breakfast with a 21 year old super delegate in Wisconsin) being looked into.
This is not a case of a little girl who stands by her parents side on the campaign trail.
She is a campaign operative and can be scrutinized as such.
That what I would do if I was a head-honcho Republican strategist is that *despite* the fact that Chelsea is really fair game right now because of her actions on behalf of her mom's campaign:
I would just leave her alone. If the Clintons want to try to use their daughter for unfair advantage against Barack Obama and anyone else, so much sauce for the goose. I'd let them do it, without any impedance.
That Chelsea is a 28 year old woman who graduated (?) from some really, really expensive Ivy League school and she's not a neophyte or a baby, but the Clintons want everyone to treat her as though she is.
I expect Chelsea to get on her own blog any day now and say: "Don't treat me like a baby, baby!"
But really it's more delicious to just leave her alone and let the Clintons keep playing the victimhood card. Every time they throw it, they demonstrate more clearly who they really are.
Ne'er a political opportunity that cannot be exploited. Most likely, HRC was nonplussed about Shuster, but so a way to rally the zombies and took it.
That the Clintons have an unfair advantage over Obama and his wife, because they're not using their daughters to influence superdelegates. It seems the Clintons are trying to take the high road and the low road at the same time.
It's like a flashback!
has a blog. McCain Blogette She's helping her dad campaign. Is she a public figure?
Once you put your face out there for a political candidate, I think you open yourself up to scrutiny. The good and the bad. Especially if you are espousing views endorsed by your candidate. Voters and the media should be able to challenge you on those merits.
As for personal attacks, those cross the lines and do not carry any value. Of course, what constitutes a personal attack? If you are trying to discredit a campaign, or the spokespeople for a campaign, credibility is almost always personal.
R.J.
She's irrelevant, so ignore her.
She's not going to draw anymore people to her mother's campaign who wouldn't be voting Democrat for the most part anyways. So if you attack her (policies not personally, that should be out of bounds either way) you have almost nothing to gain and everything to lose.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Treat her as a public figure with respect & dignity. Plus, she is attractive... :>
At 28, she looks like she's well into her 30s already. I guess having both your parents running for public office tends to wear you down before your time.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I generally err on the side of good taste in these matters. Nonetheless, you are right in saying Ms Clinton should be made to answer for the positions she espouses.
When in Heavens name have we allowed a people to speak in political forums and not permitted debate or questioning? Wasn't King George still our ruler when that was convention? This behavior is not only contra intellectual but grossly undemocratic.
All this from a hand wringing MSM that explicated ad nauseum why the "Bush Twins" were fair game for scrutiny. Frankly, it is a patently dishonest, fraudulent way of operating; but not unexpected.
If you enter the ring, one should expect a fight. But I suppose the MSM only reserves that scrutiny for Republicans. It's further evident in their attempt to coronate Obama. Think he will ever face Republican level questioning? What about his wife who is campaigning for him? Doubt it.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
...to go down the "Lets talk about Chelsea" road.
Do we really want to revisit McCain's tasteless "Chelsea Joke" NOW? :
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno"
I think not. There is plenty of other ammo lying about that isn't quite as unpredictable once you light the fuse.
But in my camp the same would go for all Presidential and candidate kids...not that they neccessarily deserve only scrutiny (esp for those that keep a private life) but that we seem to have accepted that its perfectly fine for them to very little as candidate kids.
As the granddaughter of a former Southern politician and I can assure you, he had my parents and his grandkids stomping the pavement and truly serving the public more than he had us posed for glamour shots outside of debutant events. We didn't feel abused, we were ready for scrutiny and we were proud to do it. He's been out of public office for over a decade now, and yet his grandkids and their kids are still committed to living up to the "family tradition" of community involvement in whatever way they can or believe to be helpful.
The era of "privacy for the priveleged" has enabled the skirting of the sort of civic obligations my grandfather made us all believe we had inherited. And yes, because of what he chose to do we all were obligated to fall in line, and I couldn't be more thankful for it.
A better question is why these political kids (esp females) are so content to be coddled by the press? These girls seem to enjoy a very cozy womb of scrutiny security because no one "expects" them to boot up for war. Or they don't "Have to"...This seemingly chivalrous attitude offered by the press is not only insulting, its a wee sexist if you ask me. The candidate's boys must serve in some way, but the ladies get a pass.
When did it become tacky or cheesy to expect that the priveleged to perform service? I say, let's go ladies....time to shed the popped Ralph Lauren collar for a oversized, unflattering & untailored USO golf shirt. Enough with the Vanity Fair and runway attendances, time to start wrappin' some care packages!
This line from Branum's argument struck me:
You could question Elizabeth Edwards' policy arguments, but you couldn't attack her personally.
Without being naive, or implying that either side holds the monopoly on personal attacks, that sounds awfully like a prescription for a much healthier political arena!
That said, if a public person's character is of relevance to the issues, then there is clearly a place for bringing that to the public's attention. None of the critical discussion that I've read of CC has qualified under that exception.
All the Clintons have to do is threaten the network with no access and Chelsea will get ZERO criticism. It's disgusting.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle