I assume you're talking about the Lewinsky question. I guess if you assume that (a) the fact that someone's spouse cheated on her and embarrassed her would affect her credibility and (b) that their daughter would have something intelligent to say on that shaky assumption then then yes, it would be a fair question.

On the other hand, we can also then ask why the people who are talking about raising the level of political discourse with "change" can get away that act while they talk about Clinton's husband's infidelity as if it were a reflection on her, something which sounds like the same old crappy politics we've seen for a long time.

I don't think Chelsea can be "out of bounds" if they're trotting her out to campaign for the 'rents.

Actually, this reminds me of a button I saw while killing time during the break when Ragan DIDN'T buy us lunch at the DC conference: a picture of Chelsea with a "speech bubble" that said, "Don't tell Mama; I'm voting for Obama."

Are you saying the questioner was an Obama operative, John? I saw on MSNBC today that it was a Hillary-supporting college student who was genuinely curious to answer the question.

I agree with Greg. I'm not saying all's fair. I'm just saying you can't be KIND OF in the political ring.

I don't know exactly what the "Lewinsky" question was, so I may be speaking out of turn (hey, it wouldn't be the first time!) but how is it pertinent to ask Chelsea, who was a little girl at the time of the Lewinsky affair, a question about what her father and/or her mother did, didn't do, or thought about actions that weren't Chelsea's?

Frankly David, I think you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy here by asking this question about this person/situation, i.e. encouraging the media in asking questions that, while good for sound-bites do not legitimately provide useful information about the candidates to the voters.

Chelsea isn't running for anything, and just because she shows up at a rally to support her mother's candidacy, I don't see why that automatically makes it okay to ask her questions that are really just designed to embarass her and get a good reaction for the cameras. That's tabloid journalism in my books. I say good for Chelsea and I hope she continues to NOT answer questions about things that are not legitimate to the campaign.

I'm with Kristen on this one.

Sorry; should have linked to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAO6bZa31o

I don't want to debate the intelligence or appropriateness of this question, which as I understand was asked by a college student at her town meeting.

I've been mystified for a while about this notion that Chelsea takes a leave of absence from her job and hits the road to campaign on college campuses for her mother's candidacy, but she sets the terms and the press and everybody else has to treat her with kid gloves.

She's the girl in the bubble. Except she's not a girl: She's almost 30, and she is acting as a political operative.

I would never have asked her that question about her mother's credibility--it was a dumb question--and if an Obama operative had done so, I'd call it crap.

But we have no evidence of that. It seems that after umpteen campus visits during which she talked based on political authority she got GOD KNOWS WHERE, she finally got a rude question. Big whoop.

Get over your bad self, Sis.

What I can't figure out is how she got away with the "it's none of your business" answer. Sure, the question was rude and probably ill-advised, but it was a legitimate question about the credibility of a political candidate--how is that none of our business?

We have all debated ad nauseum on this blog and other places the degeneration of the way the media does its job and the slide of mainstream media into paparazzi behaviour. I don't recall anyone saying they believe this is a good thing.

Therefore, I say if someone can stand in front of members of the media and say "That's an irrelevant/ignorant/gratuitous question [just so long as it actually IS irrelevant/ignorant/gratuitous] and I'm not going to answer it." then I say more power to them.

I frankly think if more people took this tack the media would have to go back to doing their job of finding and reporting FACTS as opposed to becoming smarmy tabloid reporters just looking for a camera-worthy reaction to a nasty question.

OTOH there was another Chelsea flap a while back when she was asked an appropriate, adult question for her role in stumping for momma that she couldn't answer and made her look a little foolish (as it would any front person who found themselves in a similar position).

In a classic display of helicopter parentalism, Bill and Hillary complained that the press was being "mean" to Chelsea. I remember remarking during dinner to our 19-year-old daughter, who was home from college at time that I hoped her mom and I had raised her will enough to stand on her own two feet when she entered the adult world, that people weren't always nice or fair, the there were times she was going to take shots that might hurt her feelings, etc., but NOT to expect mom and dad to fight here battles for her.

I was proud when my daughter replied, "I would be mad at you if you even tried."

David - Oh my God! Chelsea is "a political operative" Give me a break! While she may be on the stump for her mother's candidacy, she's speaking as Hillary's daughter and a younger person and talking about (at least in the footage I've seen) why SHE thinks her mother would be a good president. That hardly makes her James Carville or Carl Rove.

While she should absolutely expect to be challenged on HER opinions, I don't think it's fair to put her parents decisions onto her.

Would you think it was okay for people to go to town on Scout over your opinions if she happened to, say, talk about you and your work at some future point if let's say, you were running for mayor of Chicago?

Kristen, I do not mean to equate Chelsea with Rove or Carville. But your equating her with mommy's little girl who just thinks her mommy would be a good president and doggone it, wants to take a leave of absence from her job and tell the world--that's naive, and I'd say that if my beloved Barack's kids were stumping for him.

I'm not saying she shouldn't be stumping, either. I'm saying, if she's stumping, she's stumping: She's out there trying to help her mother win an election, just the same way Bill is. We don't debate what questions are off limits to him, do we?

It wouldn't be my instinct to ask Scout from campaigning on my behalf, and if she asked to do so I'd ask her why she was so willing to put her own career on the shelf to be her dad's surrogate. And if her answer didn't satisfy me,I'd tell her to stick with her day job.

But yes, if she went out there trying to get me elected, I'd expect my opponent and the media to go to town on her.

Have to side with David on this one. Chelsea is an adult folks. Mommy and daddy, of all people should have known what she was/could face on the campaign trail. If they didn't have a frank discussion with her about what she would/could face and come up with stratgies and talking points to cover those situations, she shouldn't have been put on the road.

A difficult discussion? Of course, but then Bill brought it on the family didn't he? At 28 it's not like she doesn't know what happened and has formed her own opionion about her mom and dad and obviously has come to peace with it. As the title of this post implies, she's not a little kid anymore. Everyone should treat her like the intelligent adult she is.

You're right, David. She's out there actively campaigning and, if you're gonna be campaigning for Hillary Clinton, then you had best be prepared for those questions. As Craig notes, that's part of daddy's legacy. Whether they are relevant or not, questions like that will come. She may be right to blow off the question, but she needs a better message to do that. "It's none of your business" rarely works as a political message.

Yes. I'm not even quite saying she can't say "that's none of your business." I'm just saying the whithering "how dare you" tone, along with the whole see-her-cheer-her-but-don't-question-her stance of her barnstorming tour is annoying and probably unsustainable for much longer. (And is it also unprecedented?)

As an adult, I have no problem saying, "None of your business" in a tone that makes it clear. What is the issue?

People in the public eye seem to have forgotten that is perfectly OK to say, "I'm not going to answer that question. Next..."

Fred Thompson did that during a Republican debate. Can't remember the question, but I remember respecting him for doing that. Sticking my neck out here because I haven't seen the exchange between Chelsea and reporter, but I think I respect her for the same reason. I wish more political folks would do that.

The American people don't have a "right to know" all personal issues.

Will

It's not that it is anybody's business. But from a communications standpoint it's just finding a better way to say it. Will's suggested "I'm not going to answer that question" approach works better than an indignant "none of your business."

Is there anything wrong with Chelsea Clinton declining to answer an inappropriate question like that? Not at all. But 1)nobody should be surprised it was asked if she puts herself out there like she has and 2) from a communications standpoint, there are better ways to answer it so that deflecting the question doesn't become an issue for discussion on blogs like this.

Why is it an issue? Because while people don't have "a right to know" all personal issues, a lot of people tend to think they do have that right. It's the sad byproduct of the "Entertainment Tonight-ification" of a good portion of the media landscape. But that's a whole other topic...

I seem to remember something about Mrs. Firestone and not wanting to have her divorce covered in the media, but being a public figure, and so unsavory coverage being fair game. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me the same thing applies to Chelsea Clinton. She's a public figure, she's putting herself in the public spotlight, and she's going to have to take (or refuse to answer) her share of totally inappropriate or idiotic questions. Because she's a human being, she is allowed to say that she doesn't like such ridiculous and impertinent questions, or at least show her disregard (in a genteel way) for those complete jerks who would ask such things. Or she can go do a Megan McCain and make it all about the shoes (which actually sounds like more fun than this election).

Yes, Chelsea and Mrs. Firestone are both "public figures." Hillary, on the other hand, is a "public official," being duly elected to the Senate. There is a difference between the two in communications case law. The media has more lattitude with a public official than than a public figure, and more with a public figure than with a private citizen like you and me.

None of that has anything to do with whether they want to answer a reporter's question, or how politely or impolitely they refuse to answer. In any case, the reporter has an absolute right to ask anything he or she wants to.

Will

I should clarify - this blog was about the fifth place I'd seen something about this, generally with a tone of "oh, those bad Clintons!" (Much less here than elsewhere, I should say.) The fact that this is even worth discussion just reeks of the stone-throwing we've seen both sides in this race rely on. (FYI, I am a likely Democratic voter who is undecided between the two candidates, and will vote for either come November. I really don't have a horse in this race; mostly I just want the race to be over.)

She got asked a question, she didn't want to answer it and said so, big deal. Every child of a politician ends up in this situation whether they like it or not, and everybody questions whether the boundaries they set are appropriate or not. (Remember the Cheneys getting test about questions about their daughter's sexual orientation, while said daughter was out plugging book on the subject?)

I really am not sure what it feels like to be asked about the infidelity in your parents' marriage which had been played out in world news when you were younger, so I'm inclined to give her a pass if she seemed testy.

What kind of parents would put their only child in such a position, knowing the questions that will inevitably be asked? Talk about the "content of their character...." These two are the worst kind of trash.

Well, Jane, I think this goes both ways. If she's an adult, she's an adult and we can't blame her parents for "putting" their kid out there. I think this family is a political machine, and Chelsea has revealed herself to be a part of it, rather than apart from it.

Fair enough. Just no whining about the bumps and bruises that will inevitably come.

Agreed--but if your parents are Bill and Hillary, do you really have the option of saying "no" to stumping for them, even if you're almost 30? I'm just saying. Growing up with two parents like that shapes you into certain habits (giving them what they demand because it's easier than the fighting that ensues when you don't) that may be nearly impossible to break.