This week Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President Clinton and Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, swatted away a question about her mom's credibility during a talk at Butler University in Indianapolis.
“What I said was, I just wanted to know your opinion (if) Hillary showed weakness during the Lewinsky scandal and she might not be a strong enough leader," said Evan Strange, a reporter for the campus newspaper.
Clinton's reply set off a debate as to whether or not she should be forced to answer these types of questions.
"'Wow,' Clinton told Strange, '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'."
Does she have a legitimate argument to not have to answer this question? Did he pose a legitimate question?
I can see both points of view.
His side brings out the journalist in me. We aren't paid to ask what the weather's like, we are paid to ask tough, down-in-the-dirt questions. I feel as a journalist he was doing his job, but I'm not really sure his question was worded correctly. I think he should have explained more about reason for asking the question. Why is Hillary Clinton on trial and her credibility in question because her husband had an affair? If Strange meant because Hillary Clinton didn't properly address the affair when it happened, he should have said that. He should have been clearer.
However, I can also see Chelsea's side. She's not a professional journalist, she never asked for this life where her parents are always in the spotlight. Has it benefited her? Probably. But think if your dad had an affair and the entire world knew about it and years later people are still brining it up. It would be embarrassing for any child. Chelsea is no different.
I bet she doesn't even want to be campaigning for her mom. But it is her mom so she has to suck it up.
The ironic thing is Evan Strange is a Clinton supporter...for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment