Chelsea's Vitriol

What follows is an excerpt from one of Chelsea Clinton's college visits while out on the campaign trail for her mother's presidential bid. According to NBC's Lauren Appelbaum, Chelsea was asked by a (male) student if "...her mother's credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal...." While I appreciate Chelsea's inclination to protect her family and its privacy, I'm not sure her response is appropriate. Please watch.

Here's the link where you can find the original article I read to discover this event. It offers a brief look at the aftermath.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/807581.aspx?GT1=43001

Chelsea's response, which was met with applause by the crowd, seems unappealing because the question is legitimate; does the public view Hillary as strong, or weak, because of her response to the Lewinsky scandal? This will, or at least should, impact what we might expect from voters and inform pundits as to what we might expect as the election continues. The question was also an opportunity for Chelsea to highlight her mother's strength and character, rather than something that can only be perceived as an attack on her family. Of course, it's also ironic that the question was posited to a member of one of America's most public families, but public by their own choice (as mom and dad don't have to pursue public office); this fact makes it more difficult to respect Chelsea playing the right-to-privacy "card."

It's also interesting there's such public support for Chelsea's brusque rebuttal. In case you missed it, one reader comment posted beneath the article was this one:






And again, while I understand the sensitivity that might have prompted such a vitriolic response, I don't think it was appropriate in this particular case. Was the person who asked the question a "worm," for example, that deserved to be "put...in his place" or "shut...up?" I don't think so.

But we can hardly be surprised. Not only did Chelsea receive public support at the time of the incident and through online supporters such as I've exemplified above, but there are a lot of people that agree with her remark. My concern is that what's prompted her response and much of the public's support is this country's general aversion to asking difficult questions. There are reports, for example, that only 30% of eligible voters discuss politics. And we all know why this is; we consider it rude to talk about religion and politics because, as the saying goes, "You never know who you're gonna offend." So how can we act appropriately if we're isolated in the thoughts and thinking leading up to that action. I mean, the question that prompted Chelsea's response was, basically: Is your mother a strong person and strong enough to be president? Again, connotation certainly got in the way of more clearly perceiving the question as it might have been intended, but can we be so sure the inquisitor is a "worm?" And if they are, is it because of the question or the fact that it was about politics?