So you don't think that honesty, character and morale fortitude are important?

 

 

Sure...but unlike most, I actually think that Hilary's decision to stay married to Bill actually does show character, moral fortitude and perhaps honesty. I'm not sure how Hilary's staying or not staying is honest or dishonest, though.. :confused:

 

And what Chelsea's opinion is of what her mother's decision was is really not about any of the above!

 

I'm pretty sure that it's a subjective opinion. She may have formed whatever opinion in a child-like mind. I'm sure she felt hurt and angry at the time. Maybe then she pleaded for them not to divorce. Maybe in the interim, she became self-rightously angry and wished they had divorced. Maybe now, she's a grown woman, who understands that marriage is much more complex than she could have understood then. Maybe now she realizes that no matter what, people are going to judge you...rightly or wrongly, with evidence or without....and concluded, it's no one else's business.

I see a little better where you are coming from. I just think the question should be levied at the individual running for the office and not her daughter.

I would hate for my kids to have to answer for my sins and rationales which is what I think this guy's question was doing. :thumb:

 

I agree, unless they put themselves in as active campaigners. If they are going to stand up front and extol the virtues of their parents, is it not fair that they answer hard questions about their parents?

Sure...but unlike most, I actually think that Hilary's decision to stay married to Bill actually does show character, moral fortitude and perhaps honesty.

 

I would agree and one of the very few things about her that I respect.

Allegedly. Mistress is believed to be one Rielle Hunter. I went back and added that first rather important word to my post.

One difference ... all those other things you mentioned are well-documented. The Edwards thing isn't, other than a few rumors and posts on mostly politically-motivated websites.

 

I don't pretend to know if it's true, and I'm not exactly one of Edwards' biggest fans, but I don't know if that deserves mention with the others.

That is the thing with Hillary Clinton ... everyone on the Right attributes motives to everything she does. Some are reasonable assumptions and some are just plain politically-motivated crap.

 

It always strikes me as hilarious that some on the Right that espouse "family values" and "the sanctity of marriage" never hesitate to hammer Hillary for staying with Bill.

One difference ... all those other things you mentioned are well-documented. The Edwards thing isn't, other than a few rumors and posts on mostly politically-motivated websites.

 

I don't pretend to know if it's true, and I'm not exactly one of Edwards' biggest fans, but I don't know if that deserves mention with the others.

If Edwards was still an active candidate, I probably wouldn't have gone there. But since he's no longer running, I have no problem sullying his name. :creepy: Besides, it annoys Rmom.

That question should be off limits, can someone ask Hilary herself that? Yes. But, to ask Chelsea is just uncalled for, as much as I can't stand the Clinton's I think that is completely unfair. That did not involve Chelsea at all that is a matter between Hillary and Bill.

 

I would agree if Chelsea were not actively campaigning for her mother. The question was tasteless but at some point she had to know it would be brought up. She has chosen to be a part of the process, she has to take the bad that goes along with it.

 

I really don't like the way that she has insulated herself from the media either. Again, if she wants to be part of the process then she needs to be a part of the whole process, not just what she or the Billary machine want.

That question should be off limits, can someone ask Hilary herself that? Yes. But, to ask Chelsea is just uncalled for, as much as I can't stand the Clinton's I think that is completely unfair. That did not involve Chelsea at all that is a matter between Hillary and Bill.

 

I totally agree with you. A child (no matter the age) is OFF LIMITS on this matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I totally agree with you. A child (no matter the age) is OFF LIMITS on this matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's just because no one wants to think about their parents having sex with ANYONE!

That's just because no one wants to think about their parents having sex with ANYONE!

 

 

 

Duh yeah!!!! :lol::lol:

 

Seriously though...to same something or dig at a kid/child/person because the parent did something VERY DUMB is pretty crappy in my opinion.

I would agree if Chelsea were not actively campaigning for her mother. The question was tasteless but at some point she had to know it would be brought up. She has chosen to be a part of the process, she has to take the bad that goes along with it.

 

I really don't like the way that she has insulated herself from the media either. Again, if she wants to be part of the process then she needs to be a part of the whole process, not just what she or the Billary machine want.

 

 

I believe any person should have the right to limit the media's constant, agressive, invasive tactics. The "mainstream" media has become as reprehensible as paparazzi.

I believe any person should have the right to limit the media's constant, agressive, invasive tactics. The "mainstream" media has become as reprehensible as paparazzi.

All's fair in politics.

I believe any person should have the right to limit the media's constant, agressive, invasive tactics. The "mainstream" media has become as reprehensible as paparazzi.

 

I don't disagree but modern politics is what it is and anyone who actively involves themselves in it has to know that. I personally would have never asked Chelsea that question (although I would love to ask Hillary is she is elected will female interns be allowed within 20 miles of Bill) but the fact of the matter is that Chelsea is now a 20 some year old woman who has chosen to help her mother get elected. The Clinton machine has also chosen to have Chelsea go to places where she can try to sway young voters and will not let her speak on the record about anything. She has got to expect the good with the bad.

Also does anyone find it funny that the question came from someone that describes himself as a Clinton backer?

I think that Ms. Clinton answered the question appropriately. If a person has a right to ask it, she has the right to answer it however she feels fit.

 

I think that it is ridiculous to question Sen. Clinton's integrity/honesty/morality for STAYING with her husband during his affair. If she had chosen NOT to stay with him, I would have supported that, too. I would assume that it took a lot more character and courage to stay.

What people are missing here is that the questioner, a fellow named Evan Strange, is a Clinton supporter who was actually tossing Chelsea a softball for her to give an answer about her mother's strength in fighting through the ordeal. Chelsea heard "Lewinsky" and went into defensive mode.

 

If she's going to run with the big dogs, she needs to understand that there is no hydrant that is off-limits.