Clinton’s Weakness None of Our Business?

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Chelsea Clinton simultaneously displayed her father’s arrogance and her mother’s political tin ear yesterday.

Miss Clinton was shilling for her mother at Butler University in Indiana, when a reporter for the student paper, The Butler Collegian, asked for her opinion “on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president”.

“Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business,” Miss Clinton sniped.

Yes, Miss Clinton, just as Sen. McCain’s contempt for freedom of speech and Sen. Obama’s atrocious judgment are matters of concern to the entire world, so is the strength or weakness of your mother’s character, because they are applying for a position in which the winner will exercise power that affects the entire world.

I thought that’s why your mother wanted the job.

Did you enjoy this post?

Join the Sancerres at Sunset VIP list!

3 thoughts on “Clinton’s Weakness None of Our Business?

  1. I’m less concerned with how she handled the Lewinsky scandal than the way she wants to implement Marxist doctrine under the guise of healthcare. I also think it’s more telling how she’s been recently caught in blatant lies (Tuzla) regarding her foreign policy experience, and her weak-kneed excuses after having been caught (Oh, I’m sleep-deprived! Oh, I’m only human!)

    Still, I think you’re right about Chelsea’s handling of the question. Telling someone that the Lewinsky response was a private matter is different than sniping at them.

    Next, she’ll learn to bite her lip and wag her finger at us.

  2. Wow, that was kinda cold.

    That’s interesting, because I heard it reported differently on the TODAY show this morning. The report I heard said a reporter asked Chelsea, after all these years, what she thought about Monica Lewinsky.

    When I heard her response, I thought, “Way to go, Chelsea.” Because it’s not any of their business how she dealt with her father’s infidelity.

    But you’re saying something entirely different was asked, so I’m not sure what actually happened.

    Either way, I don’t think, looking back, how Hillary dealt with the Lewinsky scandal has any bearing on her ability to be president than any other personal, private matter might have a bearing. Why does Chelsea’s response indicate she has arrogance and a political tin ear? Seemed like a legit response to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.