When we voted for Jenna Bush to lead the war in Iraq, we all thought she would always be ready and able to lead the discussion in the press about that important issue... Oh, wait. No one voted for Jenna Bush for anything, much less to make Iraq policy. This fact, then, makes it curious that the AP would give us a piece titled "Jenna Bush Ducks Iraq, Talks Engagement." Why, exactly, the AP would think Jenna Bush is the one to ask questions about Iraq during an interview about her marriage plans is anyone's guess. What kind of headline is that anyway? The subhead is even worse, "In Book-Promoting Interview, First Daughter Avoids Iraq Questions, Discusses Her Romantic Engagement Story." This is just another example of the APs Bush Derangement Syndrome where they cannot even have a nice, happy story about the daughter of the president announcing her engagement and talking about helping the poor without badgering her about policies she has nothing to do with.
Now, this story headline might be understandable if Jenna Bush was spouting off about Iraq and her father's policies. But her press conference was not about that at all. Jenna was touting "Ana's Story," a new book about the life of a 17-year-old Latin American mother with AIDS. She also talked about how her boyfriend proposed to her on a mountain-top during the sunrise.
So, with this story of 13 paragraphs, we get all sorts of "news" of the president's daughter with only two about Iraq, and some of the last ones in the story, at that.
On other issues, Jenna Bush ducked a question about whether she agreed with her father about the war in Iraq, but she said she understood critics who argue that she and her twin sister, Barbara, should serve in Iraq.
"Obviously I understand that question and see what the point of that question is for sure. I think there are many ways to serve your country. I think ... what's most appropriate for me to do is to teach or to work in UNICEF and represent our country in Latin America."
Jenna Bush "ducked the question?" Why was she even being ASKED the question?
She should have told you to pound sand, AP.
Now, certainly the Iraq war is the defining issue for Jenna's father, the president, and anyone who talks of the president has the war first in mind. But, Jenna is a kid barely out of her teens and is just trying to talk about her pending marriage and helping kids. Most of this story had nothing to do with Iraq but was about a young girl that has nothing to do with making Iraq policy.
Yet during this happy talk press conference, these cretins throw out policy questions? For what purpose? What could Jenna have to say that could possibly matter on policy issues?
This whole article goes toward the debate about the kids of presidents. Are they to be held accountable for their father's actions? Are the president's kids fair game for an adversarial press corps? If so, if it is perfectly reasonable to ask Jenna Bush about her father's defining issue, then WHY during the 1990's did we not see headlines like "Chelsea ducks questions about stained blue dress, talks of college?" Why did we not see any 1979 headlines that screamed "Amy ducks questions of Iranian hostage crisis, talks of Sunday school?"
But, we'd never see an MSM that attacks the children of Democrats like this, would we?
The only thing that describes this wholly inappropriate questioning of Jenna Bush by the ignorati of the MSM is their infection with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
AP, you should be ashamed of yourself for badgering this young lady.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
* Good Job AP
September 28, 2007 - 06:03 ET by rob6677I don't find any of this odd, my ouija board told me Jenna Bush is the real mastermind to the vast right wing conspiracy, it also told me that I was going to marry Jenna somewhere in latin america?
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
BDS First and Foremost
September 28, 2007 - 06:17 ET by motherbeltBecause Bush-Bashing is what they live for. It is so ingrained they are incapable of doing any story without taking a stab at it. They were hoping that she would say something that they could morph into a headline like "Bush Daughter Was Against Iraq Invasion" or "Jenna: I Wanted to Enlist; Dad Said No."
Sheesh. They wouldn't even ask Chelsea Clinton if she thinks her name had anything to do with her $120,000 salary right out of college.
Other questions
September 28, 2007 - 11:09 ET by djm159We might also want to ask Ms. Clinton why her mother, Hillary, said Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center during the attack of 9/11, when in reality Chelsea said she was at a friend's apartment. Maybe the two of them should get together before they speak and get the lies straight. May be Hillary suffers from Munchausen by proxy syndrome. I know she has early Alzheimer's since she cannot recall how the Rose Law firm records that had been subpoenaed ended up in the family living quarters, nor can she remember who hired Craig Livingstone, not to mention how her brother accepted money from a drug dealer to get a pardon from Bubba and Mrs. Clinton "does not recall" the conversation. Maybe the AP should check out a few of those facts and leave Jenna alone.
Could AP get more moronic?
September 28, 2007 - 06:17 ET by well99Jenna is helping people out and AP and their wantabe journalists come up with this trash.AP just shows how petty and childish they are.I really have no use for them.They should give up at journalism and stay home and play with their pet rocks.
* Pet Rocks...
September 28, 2007 - 06:33 ET by rob6677...your Mood Ring says you are quite stressed by all this. I think you should calm yourself by watching the SeaMonkeys for a while. lol
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
LOL
September 28, 2007 - 06:37 ET by well99Been awhile since I seen that stuff.Didnt it go out with tie dye clothes.
* Unfortunately...
September 28, 2007 - 06:43 ET by rob6677I don't think it will ever go away, much like Ted Kennedy!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
Scary but true.Just remember
September 28, 2007 - 07:54 ET by well99Scary but true.Just remember Teddy is concerned about the environment.As long as it doesnt block his view.
Bah-zing!!
September 28, 2007 - 08:52 ET by PeskyDaneBah-zing!!
They were probably hoping
September 28, 2007 - 06:35 ET by Tom1969caThey were probably hoping she'd say something like, "I think the war is a bad thing; too many people my age are dying over there" or some other such pablum - at which point the headline would've been "BUSH'S DAUGHTER RIPS FATHER'S FOREIGN POLICY IN INTERVIEW".
~~~
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!
Even if they were to serve
September 28, 2007 - 10:23 ET by general companyEven if they were to serve they would be ridiculed for getting "special attention" or trying to upstage the troops, or some nonsense such as that.
HA HA
September 28, 2007 - 07:42 ET by PamThere could have been a coffee spitting alert with this Warner! :)
Bush Derangement Syndrome
September 28, 2007 - 07:50 ET by Senior ChiefBush Derangement Syndrome indeed! Even if the Bushes are long gone, there will always be insinuations and accusations that all of the miseries these leftoids felt was caused by GWB.
ClintonInc
September 28, 2007 - 08:01 ET by Jack BauerTalking Chelsea... you'll note that there is ZERO interest in the fact that she walked straight into a massively paid job on Wall Street (hedge funds??). Seven figure salaries are routine in this financial area.
Hey maybe she's researching poverty like John Edwards?
But then, with CLINTONINC on the case, no one is even allowed to hang a picture of her in a celebrity restaurant. Why the long face Chelsea.
Doncha just hate these scummy pimples pretending to be people?
Talking Chelsea... you'll
September 28, 2007 - 10:03 ET by motherbeltTalking Chelsea... you'll note that there is ZERO interest in the fact
that she walked straight into a massively paid job on Wall Street
(hedge funds??) Jack Bauer
GMTA, Jack! See my post above.
Sheesh. They wouldn't even ask Chelsea Clinton if she thinks her name
had anything to do with her $120,000 salary right out of college.
If it's a Bush, Start Shooting!
September 28, 2007 - 08:12 ET by PSPCplThe MSM accuses us of being a bunch of gun totin' rednecks whose main goal in life is to kill anything that moves. Given that the pen is mightier than the sword, I would submit that it is the MSM, who whenever they get a Bush in their sights, goes into "full auto, spray and pray until it stops twitching" mode. At least when I go hunting, I don't poach, I don't go out of bounds, I won't shoot it until I know exactly what it is, and I never take out a young one.
I know what you mean,
September 28, 2007 - 20:55 ET by MikeBI know what you mean, PSP. Young liberal is stringy and has a sour aftertaste. But, that leaves you with a dilema. It's unethical to leave them lay, but if you don't shoot 'em, they grow up into adult liberals who are really dangerous.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
the whole reason for asking her about iraq
September 28, 2007 - 08:38 ET by lunaticcringeradioit is part of the media template to find any angle to attack bush
either directly or indirectly. they were looking to ask her a question
and get an answer they can skew or warp and then attatch or associate
it to the president.
the ap will never be ashamed of what they so
onesidedly do because liberals do not have any integrity. because to
them the ends justify the means, and on some occassions every now and
then, you will hear them even say that. eg michael moore movies,
liberals think of him as some kind of ken burns documentarian because
the ends justify the means since he pushes a socialist anti
conservative agenda.
lunaticcringeradio
ps why does the media
hammer the bush twins for some of their youthful, yet wrong, but
youthful indiscretions, but they whitewashed the poundpuppy chelsea, or
amy carter, and at the same time glorify paris hilton and nicole
richie? you know the answer.
There is little doubt the
September 28, 2007 - 08:41 ET by SmartypantsThere is little doubt the press was trying to bait GWB's daughter into saying something against her dad's policy, which could then be blown out of proportion in subsequent press releases. The headline of this article is just a result of frustration over the fact that Jenna gave them nothing to work with in this regard.
To Provoke to Speak of Many Things
September 28, 2007 - 10:01 ET by jonathanandersonFirst century reporters and pharisees did the same thing to Jesus Christ ...
Luke 11:53-54
(53) And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
(54) Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
Good catch jonathan I like
September 28, 2007 - 10:23 ET by Dan The Man 2Good catch jonathan I like the idea that catching public figures in saying something contrary is not something new. Of course Jesus is the Master and master at the response required.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
ding ding ding
September 28, 2007 - 10:04 ET by lunaticcringeradiosmartypants gets a gold start this morning, and since i don't play
the political correctness game nobody else gets one just to make you
feel better.
actually i just have to go to work so i can earn
some taxes to pay for deadbeats and i don't have time to read anyone
elses stuff and give out a gold star.
lunaticcringeradio
1st Century Reporters and Pharisees
September 28, 2007 - 08:47 ET by jonathanandersonFirst century reporters and pharisees did the same thing to Jesus Christ ...
Luke 11:53-54
(53) And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
(54) Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.
The MSM ... what a bunch of
September 28, 2007 - 09:18 ET by Tom1969caThe MSM ... what a bunch of Philistines! ;-)
~~~
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!
Luke 11:53-54 works,,,,
September 28, 2007 - 12:23 ET by Dad GummitBut my favorite verse right now is Ecclesiastes 10:2
"A wise man's heart inclines him mto the right, but the heart of a fool to the left."
If GW wanted the MSM or Hollyweird to support something, all he would have to do is pretend to be against it!!
"If you don't read a newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper, you are mis-informed."-Mark Twain
Remember when Chelsea was
September 28, 2007 - 09:18 ET by msh1973Remember when Chelsea was off limits...not the same for the Bush Twins. Heck, Chelsea is still off limits.
EDIT: Barbara, the other twin
September 28, 2007 - 11:26 ET by balboaBarbara, I think Barbara the other twin is cuter.
bal -
September 28, 2007 - 11:40 ET by drillanwrAh ha! bal likes the dark-haired beauties ! Let me guess, your favorite "Angel" was Kelly Garrett/Jaclyn Smith?
Although NOT identical twins, and being Pres. and Laura Bush's only children, it's funny (ha-ha) that one looks like Mom and one looks like Dad ... :^ )
You know, I liked her the
September 28, 2007 - 13:21 ET by balboaYou know, I liked her the best until Cheryl Ladd came along.
There just jealous that
September 28, 2007 - 09:29 ET by mattmThere just jealous that Bush's daughters are babes, whereas Clinton's....(Oh, sorry. Better not go there...ruff ruff...)
: )
My Favortie Clinton joke...
September 28, 2007 - 09:42 ET by Warner Todd HustonOK, here is the chance to tell my favorite Clinton joke.
President Clinton was walking down the gangway from Airforce one with a pig under each arm.
The Marine on the tarmac at the bottom smartly saluted saying, "Nice Pigs, Sir."
Clinton paused and said, "Yeah, I got this one for Hillary and this one for Chelsea."
The Marine smiled and said, "Good trade, sir!"
Jenna Bush
September 28, 2007 - 09:44 ET by LorraineWarner... I completely agree with your comments, but not your statement that Jenna is a "kid barely out of her teens". She's 25 years old, has a college degree, and has been working as a teacher since graduation. An adult by any standard.
At that age I had been married for 3 years and had a 1 year old son. I definitely considered myself an adult.
And I think you'd agree that our soldiers putting their lives on the line are adults, yet many of them are years younger than Jenna.
Cudos to Jenna for working to help others and congrats on her upcoming marriage.
OK, well, maybe I did go a
September 28, 2007 - 09:46 ET by Warner Todd HustonOK, well, maybe I did go a little far with the "kid" comment. But anyone under 30 is a kid to me these days!
I can identify with that
September 28, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Dan The Man 2I can identify with that one and the sad part the kids are getting older time goes on. One of these days the kids will be in their 70's LOL.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I do think there's an
September 28, 2007 - 20:20 ET by JerI do think there's an appropriate distinction between questioning a nearly 26 year-old woman and a girl who was a teenager during her father's administration. However, I still disagree with peppering Jenna Bush with questions about her father's Iraq policies. I think it was a crass effort to put her in an uncomfortable position and hopefully squeeze out a controversial comment.
Beyond that, Warner, I have less of a problem with your "kid" comment than with your Hillary and Chelsea "pig" joke.
Jer
Jer, asking the son or
September 28, 2007 - 21:45 ET by fitzfongJer, asking the son or daughter of the President a policy question is inappropriate and irrelevant. I'm glad that you're reasonable enough to acknowledge that. But what difference does it make how old she is? It's cheap "journalism", but it's something that's come to be accepted as legitimate by a biased press in this BDS atmosphere. I remember how the media used Patty Davis and/or Ron Reagan, Jr. every time they wanted to embarass Ronald Reagan. Political journalists are as petty and ill-informed as high school cliques, and they'll use any pathetic opportunity they can muster to attack a Republican. Fortunately, they're becoming increasingly irrelevant.
fitz, because I think
September 28, 2007 - 21:59 ET by Jerfitz, because I think asking a twelve year old [which I believe was Chelsea's age when Clinton was first elected] almost any question besides "how do you like your nice new house?" should be off limits. By the time she was twenty at the end, the range can be expanded, but not to include questions of policy, and certainly not issues of foreign policy.
As far as Patti Davis and Ron, Jr., I think they sought out the media as much as the reverse.
Jer
Jer, I remember that SNL
September 28, 2007 - 22:38 ET by fitzfongJer, I remember that SNL used to make fun of Chelsea Clinton when she was in that "awkward" phase...and the same went for Amy Carter. While no girl deserves that scrutiny, especially for her adolescent appearance, the press coverage was largely favorable and respectful...and rightly so. But the media has been harrassing Jenna and Barbara Bush since the day their father became President...and it's been especially personal and mean-spirited. The microscope these two women were subjected to...while they were both attending "elite" universities, was something that no other first family had to endure involuntary. Even the condescending, mocking manner in which the Jenna and Barbara were referred to as "the Bush Twins"...reducing them to frivolous party girls constantly running afoul of the law, was unfair and dishonest. The manner in which smug "journalists" used Jenna and Barbara as pawns in the anti-war argument (you're sending these poor kids off to war, yet you won't send your precious "drunk" twins...that shows you don't really believe in the war BS) was simply unacceptable. But let's face it, today's "journalists" are no better than crack whores, they'll do anything to get paid so they can get a fix. If Pinch wants to nail Bush, he'll hire one of his prostitutes to dredge up something on one of Bush's defenseless children. Lame, pathetic tactics. Journalism is a lost art, and few are worthy of the title. By the way, Reagan's two little s***s may have been attention whores, but it's not like the Reagan-hating media would have let any opportunity to attempt to make the Gipper look bad go by.
FWIW, I don't think Texas
September 28, 2007 - 22:43 ET by balboaFWIW, I don't think Texas is an elite university, really.
And Jenna didn't really help herself out.
The University of Texas is
September 28, 2007 - 22:52 ET by fitzfongThe University of Texas is routinely considered one of the top 10 public universities in the country. If that isn't considered elite, fair enough. You leftist softies have totally screwed up the public school system, anyway.
You're welcome.
September 28, 2007 - 22:56 ET by balboaYou're welcome.
fitz, is there a single
September 28, 2007 - 23:31 ET by Jerfitz, is there a single societal ill for which you don't hold liberals responsible?
But back to the media and members of the President's family. You are astute enough to realize that the press just wants a good story. They haven't been relentlessly attacking the Bush daughters since day one. But when they were handed a juicy story, they ran with it for awhile. When Jimmy Carter's brother Billy was swilling beer and acting like a goober, they hopped on that.
I want someone to some day give me some comprehensive evidence of the alleged preferential media treatment of Bill Clinton. Howell Raines, editor of the NYT hated him, the NYT and the LA Times initiated the Whitewater wild goose chase. The Washington Post was no friend. Sally Quinn said the Washingtion media establishment considered them "Arkansas hicks." The progressive/left press considered him to conservative. I would turn on PBS and listen to him get pounded by Ben Wattenberg, followed by Bill Buckley, followed by John McGlauthlin, followed by McGlauthlin again, followed by Louis Ruykaiser [also Krauthammer and Paul Gigot]--all hammering Clinton, only to have the right complain about the "liberal Clinton-loving PBS". And of course the conservative media trashed the Clintons unmercifully for eight years.
So if you have any studies showing otherwise, I'd love to see them.
Jer
Well, to support my point in
September 29, 2007 - 00:45 ET by Warner Todd HustonWell, to support my point in the piece, the jokes about their adolescent appearance that comedians made of Amy and Chelsea, and making fun of Billy Beer Carter, and other various ADULT presidential relatives were different than these inappropriate questions to Jenna Bush.
NONE of those other presidential relatives were asked questions of POLICY and berated for not answering or made fun of on that basis .
Jenna was.
And, Warner, you'll note in
September 29, 2007 - 00:52 ET by JerAnd, Warner, you'll note in my earlier post that I completely agreed with you concerning questions of policy.
Jer
Jer, For starters,
September 29, 2007 - 00:54 ET by fitzfongJer,
For starters, liberalism is the societal ill. It's unworkable. It's an intellectually and morally bankrupt, lazy philosophy that's responsible for just about everything that's wrong in the world.
Good Lord, Jer. That serial rapist and perjurer was always and continues to be protected by the media. Whitewater was not a "wild goose chase", it was a sleazy real estate fraud scheme that enriched the Clintons at the expense of unsuspecting retirees. The Clintons and their subordinates continually obstructed justice with the approval of the MSM, and had the unmitigated nerve to portray themselves as victims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy"...much to the delight of their trained seals in the media. So a couple of journalists occassionally stepped out of line and criticised them once in a while. They didn't do it often, and they usually ended up on the sharp end of a James Carville/Paul Begala character assassination. Paula Jones and Linda Tripp were harassed by the Clintonistas in the media and they were routinely mocked for their physical appearance...as if that had anything to do with the accusations against Clinton. The media did Clinton's bidding...if you refuse to see that, you're delusional.
fitz, you left out mass
September 29, 2007 - 01:34 ET by Jerfitz, you left out mass murderer and drug kingpin. You know I like and respect you and think you provide some of the more insightful commmentary on this site. But when you get wound up on this subject, I feel like I'm watching a tape of the Clinton Chronicles.
So, we have a different view on the media and Clinton. But 'delusional' references aren't going to get us anywhere.
Jer
Fair enough, Jer. I like
September 29, 2007 - 03:42 ET by fitzfongFair enough, Jer. I like you and respect your reasoning, too. If using the term "delusional" appears over the top, I'll accept that I could have made a better word choice. As for the Clintons, I happen to believe that there's a bit of revisionist history going on...created mostly by them. Contrary to what they'd have us believe, they were not persecuted. Bill Clinton was simply a politician with no core beliefs whose primary strength was getting elected. He governed entirely by polls to preserve an artificial and meaningless approval rating. This wasn't entirely a bad thing, as he occassionally got things right...if only because it was popular. But he had (and still has) a propensity to take credit for triumphs that weren't his and to avoid responsibility for failures that were his. He wasn't the worst President in my lifetime (Carter wins that race in record time...and I don't think George H.W. Bush was any great shakes), but he certainly wasn't anything near the all-conquering Messiah that he and his fiction writers would portray. He was never forced to be involved in any real challenges...and he bottled the greatest challenges he faced.
Even members of the left had
September 29, 2007 - 04:44 ET by Warner Todd HustonEven members of the left had said his 8 years were the most "wasted potential" of any prez ever (naturally, THEY thought his days were wasted because he didn't turn us into the Stalinist state they so desired, but... you know).
Clinton was just a seat warmer. Not the worst, but FAR from good.
I always referred
September 29, 2007 - 13:30 ET by fitzfongI always referred to Clinton's two terms as the most frivoulous Presidency ever. Trivial is another way of putting it.
Thanks, fitz, for the
September 29, 2007 - 14:13 ET by JerThanks, fitz, for the returned compliment and for what I think is a more reasoned and sustainable assessment of Clinton and his administration. I agree in part and disagree in part. The sheer recklessness of his odius and indefensible personal behavior and the disastrous political consequences it produced will forever stain him and his presidency. It was regrettable because it not only hijacked strategic opportunities but also fed a pathologically hostile Congress and scandal whoring media. Frankly, I find it remarkable that despite the backdrop of unrelenting investigation [and without question Bill Clinton is the most investigated President in American history] he was able to rather effectively lead the nation for eight years--and by many yardsticks his aministrations must be regarded a succeess. In that sense, he was forced to be involved in real challenges--and survived them.
I don't dislike Hillary but I do not support her candidacy. If she is the nominee I may vote for a Republican for President for the first time in my life. The last thing this country needs is someone as politically polarizing as she.
I tend to agree with you about Carter, although, in my opinion, Nixon, being intellectually capable but psychologically unfit for the job, ties for the worst.
Jer
Jer, I am old enough to
September 29, 2007 - 15:25 ET by fitzfongJer,
I am old enough to have only a vague recollection of the Nixon resignation, but I do remember much of the desperation of the Carter Administration...the hostage crisis, the Olympic boycott, making Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday appointments to sit in the seemingly endless gas lines. I grew up in California and my wife grew up in New York...but we both remember word-for-word the Jimmy Carter/Oscar Meyer song (...cause Jimmy Carter has a way of screwing up the USA). But I do believe that much of the modern day media coverage has its roots in Watergate. Nixon may have exhibited paranoia during the end of his Administration, but the press was relentless in its attempt to get him. But overall, Nixon was a decent man. After all, he could have forced the nation into a bitter, partisan recount crisis...with far more justification than Gore had. Instead, he put the interests of the country over his own personal interests (or at least that's the way I see it). But once Nixon got caught, he inadvertantly gave the media license that they haven't deserved. Any time a charlatan like Dan Rather or Jayson Blair trumps up a story, an army of journos gets self-righteous...complaining that scrutiny of bad journalism is somehow Nixonian press intimidation. Anyway, now I've gone really far afield.
As for Clinton, I think the assertion that he was the most investigated President is largely a myth. A famous commercial during that era featured Andre Agassi and the famous line "Image is Everything". Clinton's team has followed that mantra from day one. There were plenty of Clinton officials worthy of investigation and prosecution...Gore, McAuliffe, Hillary, etc...who never truly had to face the music for their misdeeds. Even after Clinton left office, Sandy Berger was given less than a slap on the wrist for stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archive as the 9-11 Commission hearings neared. Keith Olbermann earned his media bona fides by famously refusing to cover the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. The Clinton Administration has always used the tactic of getting out in front of an attack...going on the offensive, changing the subject, questioning the motives of anyone who might challenge them. Many of the successes Clinton trumpets were things he opposed...they were largely Republican Congressional triumphs that he fought against tooth and nail.
I shudder to think that Hillary might be the next President. She's not qualified and there's nothing to recommend her. The suggestion that it's a slick way of grandfathering her husband in for another four years may appeal to some, but I think it will turn off just as many. She's been ducking "hypothetical" questions in appearances and debates...it seems to be a useful tactic, but it's ridiculous...as a hypothetical President, how can she expect to face any question other than those hypothetical? But still, could she be any worse than Edwards or Obama? Much as I find her personally distasteful, I have to think she's more qualified to be President than either Edwards or Obama. I find Edwards to be especially odious, a slick opportunist so bereft of honesty and shame as to exploit anything for political advantage. Obama strikes me as a man out of his depth. His promise to raise taxes on capital gains in order to keep tax rates on employment income the same shows such a fundemental misunderstanding of economics that I can't see him being a serious candidate. Hillary is running virtually unopposed because there are really no legitimate alternatives in her party...they've marginalized the Joe Liebermans of the world. I'm a Republican, and will almost certainly vote Republican in the 2008 election (as long as it's not a Chafee/Swartzenegger/Hagel-type)...though I have a lot of respect for Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford. Before this post descends further into lengthy farce, I will stop typing.
bal, I guess it depends on
September 28, 2007 - 22:53 ET by Jerbal, I guess it depends on what qualifies as "elite". I think the University of Texas has an excellent academic reputation.
Jer
It's not a bad school, but
September 28, 2007 - 22:59 ET by balboaIt's not a bad school, but I wouldn't say it's elite either.
Funny thing about this
September 29, 2007 - 02:22 ET by well99What really get lost in the political fog is all the good she does.AP should of focused on that.She could be living the charmed life but instead is trying to help others.The phoneys who claim to be the ones who want to help others but they are talk and no action.They want the goverment to do it all.Might be fear of actually haveing to associateing with someone other than other "leets".It is a shame politics gets in the way of the most important message.My hats off to Jenna and her sister.They help others which is a good thing in my book.
Well, Jer, if she's nearly
September 29, 2007 - 12:36 ET by fitzfongWell, Jer, if she's nearly 26, that means that she'd qualify as a child under SCHIP...therefore she should be protected from such unfair questioning ;-)
Like a drunk uninvited guest
September 28, 2007 - 10:42 ET by ForeverOnTheRightAP was tacky, rude and inappropriate. They where like a drunk uninvited guest at a wedding reception. The “juniornalist” that asked the question or wrote this story should be suspended without pay for a month so they can rethink the appropriateness of the question. And the editor that cleared it for printing should be put on probation for being so stupid.
...And the editor that
September 28, 2007 - 11:00 ET by MightyMouth...And the editor that cleared it for printing should be put on probation for being so stupid
Truth is, they probably were given raises and taken out to dinner and drinks.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Unfortunately, if not taken
September 28, 2007 - 11:14 ET by ForeverOnTheRightUnfortunately, if not taken out for dinner they got an ataboy and perhaps a prommise of a higher raise when performance reviews come around. The only thing that would take that away would be a public outcry and enough bad publicity. Then the AP would do something to same their own arse, and to "h" with the "reporter." So much for loyalty.
I'm sorry ... I had to check
September 28, 2007 - 11:01 ET by drillanwrI'm sorry ... I had to check my calendar to see if it was April 1 ...
Was it?
September 28, 2007 - 11:50 ET by mattmWas it?
With the LLMSM, it's ALWAYS
September 28, 2007 - 11:57 ET by drillanwrWith the LLMSM, it's ALWAYS April 1 ...
BDS
September 28, 2007 - 11:49 ET by d1carterAP and Al-Reuters have lost all credibiltity as news services. I tend to ignore them now.
you mean they had
September 28, 2007 - 12:10 ET by bassndudeyou mean they had credibility? When??
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Yeah, why didn't Chelsea
September 28, 2007 - 11:58 ET by fitzfongYeah, why didn't Chelsea Clinton step in when her dad failed to hold Bin Laden or to effectively retaliate for the bombing of the Khobar Towers?
Why didn't Amy Carter get the hostages released from the American Embassy in Iran?
Al-AP was probably looking for Jenna to give a snotty anti-Administration answer like they used to get from Patty or Ron Reagan, Jr.
Al-AP was probably looking
September 28, 2007 - 12:05 ET by drillanwrAl-AP was probably looking for Jenna to give a snotty anti-Administration answer like they used to get from Patty or Ron Reagan, Jr.
Either THAT or some airheaded, dumb-party-girl answer, a la pick-your-celebrity-pop-tart ...
HMMMMM
September 28, 2007 - 12:18 ET by Dad GummitChelsea wasn't asked about Kosovo
"If you don't read a newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper, you are mis-informed."-Mark Twain
Somalia, Bosnia, or even her
September 28, 2007 - 13:06 ET by BDSomalia, Bosnia, or even her fathers immasculation of the US Army that we are still suffering from. (I want my two divisions back.)
Dad Gummit
September 28, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Gary HallDad Gummit. No kidding. Here's a good one. Notable leftie writer David Corn, Washington editor of "The Nation," in a 2002 piece titled, 'Too little, too late - How many times is Bill Clinton going to apologize to Africa?" opens up a landmine field of potential questions for not only Chelsea, but for Hillary, the entire Democrat field of candidates and of the media, themselves.
My choice might be, "Following the Rwandian genocide, in which your father was held to be complacent, he impressed the world with a promise of "Never Again." In 1998, the Rwandan conflict moved next door to the DR Congo. In the years that followed, the BBC reported that 4 1/2 million more died from civil war, genocide, and disease and starvation caused by the conflict, noting that it was the largest loss of life since WW II in a single conflict. What do you think Bill Clinton actually meant by "Never Again?"
Actually - I propose that the question be the lead at each and every Democratic presidental debate for the rest of the season.
NY Times spelled out Chelsea's protection by the press.
September 28, 2007 - 13:05 ET by Gary HallWarner. Surprisingly, the NY Times spelled out Chelsea's protection by the press. In a piece titled, Media Conspiracy; Chelsea Under Wraps by By MARGARET TALBOT, December 3, 2000.. well, here are a few excerpts (my bold):
I tell yunz, Gary ... She's
September 28, 2007 - 13:47 ET by drillanwrI tell yunz, Gary ... She's being protected as the "virgin bride" for the antichrist ... Did I say that??
This scumbag AP stringer
September 28, 2007 - 13:23 ET by stratmanThis scumbag AP stringer must have graduated Magna Cum Laude from the James Webb School Of Indecency and Anger Mismanagement.
This was beyond the pale. Must have been a DKos lunatic in Clark Kent clothing.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
How about some questions for Chelsea?
September 28, 2007 - 19:42 ET by pbthinkerDoes anyone think AP would corner Chelsea Clinton and ask any of the following questions:
1. Your mother, it's alledged, was in charge of bimbo eruptions, during your fathers time in Arkansas and during his Presidency. What do you think about that?
2. DO you think it's proper for the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, to lie in front of a grand jury, under oath?
3. Do you think your fathers policies had anything to do with 9/11?
4. Did you see a lot of Chinese people, when you were in the White House?
Needless to say, Chelsea will be given all the privacy she desires, and if she writes a book any questions, other than those about the book, will be considered off-limits.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.