But isn't her personal life the only thing that qualifies her to be a surrogate for her mother's campaign in the first place? Given that, I think it is justified to expect some insight into her relationship with her mother, which would serve to explain her support beyond the obvious maternal connection, and who Chelsea is in her private life, which would establish a connection between her and other young people and illustrate just why she is qualified to speak to our interests.

Take those things away, and just what is she offering as a surrogate beyond a familiar face and a repertoire of comebacks for anyone who dares ask about her father's history of sexual harassment?

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought it was a bad article. They've also changed the article title several times. The first one I saw was "Too Goody-Goody for Her Generation," which was just... awful.

The part where he tells us all what Chelsea *should* have said drove me crazy:

I really don't feel like talking about Monica," she might have said, "but thank you very much for the personal and intrusive question." Or, if humor isn't appropriate, what about: "I know that question may be on your minds, but I'm not ready to talk about such a personal issue, and I may never be.

Would this writer ever suggest that the son of a candidate humanize himself by saying "I really don't 'feel' like talking about that" or "I'm 'not ready' to talk about that"? I doubt it.

When someone asks about Monica as if that has any bearing at all on whether or not Hillary would be a good president, Chelsea should absolutely call bullshit.

Right, because:

1. It's not even her responsibility to make her mom more youth-friendly. It's Hillary's.

2. Chelesa's got, you know, a JOB. She probably doesn't have time to be chillin' on the MySpace talking Hillary up.

People stink.

Actually, she's on sabbatical from her job so she may fully dedicate herself to talking up her mother and making her appear more youth-friendly.

And I really don't think Lewinsky should be off-limits. Bill abused his power and ruined Monica Lewinsky's life in a way most people can't imagine, and Hilary stood by him and played an integral role in helping him salvage his image so he could go on to use trade his name for the kind of money and power that went on to foster and fuel Hilary's subsequent career and the very campaign Chelsea is supporting.

Is it inappropriate to question Chelsea about these things under any other circumstances? Yes, of course. At the moment, however, she's a representative of her mother and presents the only opportunity most of the young men and women she speaks to will ever have to question someone close to the Clinton campaign about the matters that concern them. Given that, nothing should be off limits, and if she isn't comfortable with that then she should have pulled a Mary Cheney and stayed out of politics.

My main criticism of Chelsea is that, like every other politician, she sticks to her talking points and does not diverge from them. I don't think it makes her a bad spokewoman for our generation, it just makes her no different from anyone else on the stump for any political candidate. I think the author of this article thought maybe, given her age, she might be different.

The funny things is that politicians and their surrogates seem to show wit and humor after the race is over that would have made made them more effective during their campaign if they showed it earlier (cases: Bob Dole & Al Gore)

I think Chelsea is right to not comment on the Lewinsky scandal. That whole ordeal is a great example of what's wrong with politics in America. And the dialog of the campaigns should be on the issues, not affairs and who's pastor said what in what sermon.

Ha, Becca, I was going to say that I respected her ability to stay on message.

Perhaps she is being a bit overly on target but I can still recall criticisms of her during her father's presidency...especially my own mother complaining about how "homely" she was which pissed me off. I can't even imagine how much shit she has had to deal with in her life.

"I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought it was a bad article. They've also changed the article title several times. The first one I saw was 'Too Goody-Goody for Her Generation,' which was just... awful."

I didn't like the article much either. I mean, the author even whined about Chelsea not letting it all hang out on Facebook - as if older generations have a monopoly on valuing some privacy. o_O

Reading the WP article made me like Chelsea better, for it pointed out that she is setting her own boundaries instead of being bullied while still having the courage to speak in public. I am glad that she is not pretending to be something she's not - and to pretend that she was exactly like everyone else in 'her generation' would be ridiculous. She grew up in the White House. It sounds like this Ian just wants yet another girl celebrity scandal where he can watch an attractive and competent woman come apart for the viewers' entertainment. I'm glad that she's not giving us that type of show.

When I met her, she was nice and friendly. I think it's absolute crap to expect her to answer questions about the Lewinsky incident, as I think it is inappropriate to ask Hillary, Bill, or Monica questions about the incident, because they aren't relevant. Bill's infidelities should not be a reflection of who Hillary Clinton or Chelsea Clinton are.

And it really irritates me to hear that Bill ruined Monica's life (or the other way around). They were both consenting adults who engaged in an extramarital sexual relationship. That's their business- not mine, and not yours. Monica (and Bill) suffered a great deal at the altar of public interest. If people were concerned with Monica Lewinsky's suffering, there never would have been coverage of the case. There would have been very little scandal at all. However, because people think they are entitled to ask and get genuine responses to whatever incredibly personal and invasive questions they ask of public officials and their families, people like Monica Lewinsky and the Clinton family get tried in the court of public opinion.

Somehow, I think the president of the United States is in a better position to judge the consequences of an affair than a 22 year old intern. Do you think Lewinsky would have done it if she'd known she'd never work in politics again and even have to go so far as to leave the county?

And what about Paula Jones? Did she consent to being harassed? How about the other women whom Clinton used his sway to discredit following their claims of harassment, and even rape? Furthermore, what about any other women who, understandably, may have felt reluctant to come forward given what happened to Lewinsky?

Face it, there are members of the women's movement who have let the Clintons get away with acts they'd see others hang for, and for little reason beyond agreeing with some of their politics (but obviously not all of them, unless you think Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a good idea) and have offered the first viable female presidential candidate.

Country, not county*

As a daughter of a public official who has been propositioned numerous times for sex by interns (and is in a much less powerful position than Bill Clinton), I don't attribute innocent and doe-eyed motives to Monica Lewinsky's engaging in an affair with Bill Clinton. I'm not saying what her motives were, because I don't know them, and neither do you. I addressed your comment on Monica. I didn't address Paula Jones, because you hadn't addressed Paula Jones earlier. I feel like the tone of your response was meant to imply that I somehow think that it's okay for Paula Jones to have been sexually harassed. I don't. I don't think it is EVER okay. I pointed out that the sex between Lewinsky and Clinton was consensual. To compare that to rape or harrassment is erroneous. To imply that by saying that the sex between Clinton and Lewinsky was consensual I was somehow pardoning Bill Clinton for sex crimes is offensive to me, and a misrepresentation of my comments entirely.

With regards to the Paula Jones case, as well as other sexual harrassment and assault cases (since you dragged them into this to feel morally superior), I reserve the right to say I don't know what happened in those situations. Because I don't. And neither do you.

More offensive than any of that, though, is that instead of blaming Bill Clinton, you choose to blame his wife. Because, if a husband cheats on his wife, it's her fault. If a husband harasses a woman, his wife is responsible for it. If a woman is married to a man, and he makes an error of judgement, makes a bad policy, commits a sex crime, I believe the person who should be blamed is the man. The person who did something wrong (or was alleged to have done something wrong).

I'm sorry if I am being combative, but recent coverage of political sex scandals has really bothered me. I've listened to women complain about how Hillary stayed with him, how Spitzer's wife stayed with him and it just makes me furious that people presume to know how other women "should" act when faced with that kind of situation.

Robos A Gogo, I must have missed something. I thought it was Hillary Clinton, not her husband, who was running for president.

Hillary Clinton was a victim in this situation, not a criminal. The question of how she dealt with a distressing, and wholly personal, event is inappropriate.

The question would be inappropriate if Bill Clinton's role in Hilary's life was limited their marriage, but it isn't. He's a confidant, spokesman, fundraiser, and essentially the entire reason Hilary has a political career at all. Furthermore, Hilary has inexorably tied herself to Bill Clinton's terms as president by suggesting that she had just as much a hand in his accomplishments during that era as any other member of his cabinet.

Given all this, I think it's entirely fair to judge Hilary based on Bill's actions in the same way you'd judge any other politician for the relationships he or she has maintained in order to achieve a position of power. Furthermore, just as Hilary should be granted credit for the role she has played in Bill's successes, so too should she be scrutinized for her role in helping Bill escape judgment for his mistreatment of women and abuse of power.

Do you think he would still be remembered so fondly if Hilary had done the right thing and said that, even though she stands by him as his wife, she could not stand by him as president? No! Without Hilary by his side, his image would be in the tubes, and he'd be remembered for the scumbag he was rather than hailed as the best the Democratic Party has to offer.

And yes, I understand that it's a bit much to expect anyone to betray their spouse, even if that means doing the right thing for the women he took advantage of and victimized. She's running for president, though, and we ought to demand peerless integrity and a willingness to sacrifice personal standing for the greater good in our candidates rather than merely sweeping unpleasant matters under the rug and going, "Woo, first female president!"

Besides, hasn't Hilary applied even a harsher standard to Obama's private life, stating that his relationship with Wright, a man whose only crime lies in saying inappropriate things, is fair game for public scrutiny? By the same standard, shouldn't her relationship with her husband, a fucking rapist who got away with it with help from the public image of a devoted wife and later used the money and political capital a rapist shouldn't have to turn that woman into a senator and presidential candidate, similarly be questioned.

Honestly, I'd let this thing slide if Hilary forced Bill to stay the fuck away from the campaign and made it to the top without his help, but she didn't. With that choice, all I can think of is the fact that neither would be where they are now if they hadn't managed to silence a handful of women, and maybe more.

What I don't get about the media's outrage over Chelsea is that they actually are aghast that someone does not want to discuss her parents' sex lives. The media was shocked- SHOCKED!- that Chelsea took umbrage to being asked about her father's ex-mistress. I thought the questions were mean-spirited and served no political purpose whatsoever, other than to fish for embarrassing comments that will make for a salacious soundbite.

Perhaps Shapira's demand for a more open Chelsea is based upon the patriarchal belief that women must be emotionally exposed in a vulnerability = femininity sort of way. Or maybe Shapira is just upset that Chelsea isn't providing the charming drunken tabloid fare of the Bush twins that kept many a tabloid writer in business. These days, lazy reporters want the humiliated celebrity stories instead of serious, political fare.

What I don't get about the media's outrage over Chelsea is that they actually are aghast that someone does not want to discuss her parents' sex lives. The media was shocked- SHOCKED!- that Chelsea took umbrage to being asked about her father's ex-mistress. I thought the questions were mean-spirited and served no political purpose whatsoever, other than to fish for embarrassing comments that will make for a salacious soundbite.

Perhaps Shapira's demand for a more open Chelsea is based upon the patriarchal belief that women must be emotionally exposed in a vulnerability = femininity sort of way. Or maybe Shapira is just upset that Chelsea isn't providing the charming drunken tabloid fare of the Bush twins that kept many a tabloid writer in business. These days, lazy reporters want the humiliated celebrity stories instead of serious, political fare.

To his credit, the story opens with Chelsea dodging a question about the ethics of encouraging superdelegates to vote against the will of their constituents which, to me, is the most important issue in the primary right now as Hilary's viability as a candidate hinges upon that obviously anti-democratic choice. If anything, Chelsea's response proved that she's unqualified to discuss her mother as a politician and that her sole ability as a surrogate, if she has any, is to speak to her mother's on a personal level.

Speaking to her mother's character on a personal level, of course, doesn't mean answering any personal questions that may illustrate just why Chelsea has such a high opinion of her in the first place, obvious genetic ties aside.

So, in the end, Chelsea is expecting us to take her endorsement seriously even as she offers us no reason to do so. Given that, I think the writer's judgment, if not his presentation and the details he chose to support his point, is sound.

"Somehow, I think the president of the United States is in a better position to judge the consequences of an affair than a 22 year old intern."

As a 22-year-old I have to wonder how stupid and naive you think we are.

And I don't really think Chelsea should be expected to talk about Monica Lewinsky. My dad had an affair when I was 14 and there's no way I'd want to talk about it in public.

I must have been hiding under a rock, because I don't remember any rape charges against Clinton. When did this happen? I never really liked the man; knew he was probably one of those really creepy guys who think they give you a compliment when they call you "Sexy" - but I never heard about rape.

As far as Chelsea going on the trail for her mom, I'd do the same thing. Hell, my lovely mother works for one of the worst corporations on the planet, but if she asked, I'd back her up. 'Cause she's my mom and yes, I have blind devotion to her.

However, as far as expecting Chelsea to say anything more than, "I love my mom," I think that's silly. No one should expect Chelsea to wax philosophical on extra-marital affairs or South Korean Politics. She's smart, yes, but not running for president. I don't listen to the posse, I listen to the candidate. The posse, as we've seen, tends to get a little out of hand.

I'm 21 years old, and I don't think anything Monica Lewinsky has said or done suggested that she knew she'd be slut-shamed out of the United States when she accepted Bill's sexual propositioning. If she had this knowledge, then why would she say yes?

Furthermore, I don't think it's so out of line to suggest that Bill, whose knowledge of the course sex scandals usually take came from personally sexually harassing and allegedly raping women first hand, knew a little bit more about how things would unfold than Lewinsky, who'd never been involved with a politician or, seemingly, any prior employer. Could she have guessed? Maybe, but even then she'd still be naive in comparison to the man who'd made a habit of the act.

And yeah, Hilary obviously knew Bill had sexually harassed and allegedly raped women before he became president, so I think it's fair to say that sponsoring his ascension to higher ranks with the knowledge that he'd likely continue his abuse as he had before through other stations is tantamount to helping an employer who raped a subordinate earn an acquittal and then playing a key role in his promotion.

The only difference is that Bill never went to trial, not because there was no case but rather because of power earned, in part, thanks to Hilary.

"I must have been hiding under a rock, because I don't remember any rape charges against Clinton. When did this happen? I never really liked the man; knew he was probably one of those really creepy guys who think they give you a compliment when they call you "Sexy" - but I never heard about rape."

There was never a question that his harassment went beyond words. He allegedly exposed himself to Paula Jones after repeated rejections on her part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

He allegedly raped this woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

And he allegedly sexually assaulted this woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey

Frankly, I think the treatment of Bill Clinton by the media and Democrats is the starkest example of sexism and misogyny America has ever seen, and the fact that people (feminists, much less!) are willing to look the other way fucking sickens me.

Courtney -

How about a little accuracy in reporting?

"The media" didn't accuse Hillary of "pimping out" Chelsea. One person, who is a member of the media, did. He was quickly punished by his employer and forced to apologize.

"The media" is an amorphous entity comprised of thousands and thousands of individuals - including you and all the bloggers at Feministing, btw.

If you want to discuss larger trends of sexism within that subset, that's fair, provided you show us some evidence. But the "pimping" comment was the work of one man alone. Don't tar thousands of people with that tiny brush.

@ Robos A Go Go:

You really feel comfortable citing Wikipedia as a source of information in a situation where the facts are heavily disputed?

Yes, so long as the only fact being presented via wiki is as simple as "allegations of sexual assault were made".

I hear watered down versions of what the "Hillary supporter" said. They very rarely put the full quote in as it is just fundamentally wrong. He was asking irrelevant questions unrelated to the campaign and her fitness or calling to the office, in a way that would be uncalled for of any person.

The comment asking her if she thinks her father’s infidelity damaged her mother’s reputation was a rude question to begin with. Why would a person in a relationship have their reputation damaged if their partner was unfaithful? The thin gloss of his statement that he was for Hillary from the questioner appalled me even more. Why would it ever be appropriate to take the actions of one person in a partnership and affix a damaged reputation to the person that did not do the action?

I loved her reply and did not think it was not in the spirit of nondisclosure but reassertion of boundaries and the right to answer only logical or pertinent questions.

"I must have been hiding under a rock, because I don't remember any rape charges against Clinton."

You were, and I envy you. Offhand, I cannot think of ANYTHING that Clinton was not charged for (not legally, but in some publication).