How Low Can They Go?

How Low Can They Go?
Carlotta Cooper

From the "How low can they go?" file, a couple of people recently have referenced Bill Clinton's Lewinsky affair, as if that episode somehow tarnishes Senator Hillary Clinton. At Butler University a student in the crowd asked Chelsea Clinton if the affair had lessened her mother's "credibility," of all things. Here was Chelsea's response, delivered slowly and thoughtfully:

"Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that in the, I don't know, maybe 70 college campuses that I've now been to and I do not think that's any of your business."

The crowd applauded her answer.

According to the student, Evan Strange, he supports Senator Clinton and he asked the question because his friends are always bringing up the scandal. He thinks Chelsea Clinton missed a chance to tell people about her mother's strength. He says he was very surprised by the rebuke. Really? You ask a daughter about her father's affair and her mother's pain; you're the first person from 70 college campuses to be so rude; and you are surprised by Chelsea Clinton's response?

I wonder if it ever occurs to people that some things are not simply politics. That politicians are also real people and that some things, like cheating and betrayal, are not merely a matter of political gain or loss. That marriages are at stake and children are hurt. Whether these events are played out in private or on a public stage doesn't lessen the the humanity of the people involved or their human vulnerability.

Are there people reading this post who have cheated? Or who have been cheated on? Did you feel guilt, shame or humiliation? Did you have to confess or try to forgive someone? It certainly can't be easy to try to resume a career in public life with the whole world snickering and making dirty jokes.

While a university student can be forgiven for taking the wrong tack it's harder to get past Obama backer Gordon Fischer's blog comments about Bill Clinton. The remarks have been removed and Fischer has apologized so I won't post them, but they should not have been made. There is no excuse for them, especially from a campaign that has claimed to be engaging in a new kind of politics.

I don't think there is a new kind of politics because there are not any new human beings. Since the time of Aristotle and certainly Machiavelli politics has been much the same as it is now because people and their motivations are the same. Perhaps that's why some people have labeled Senator Obama's supporters as too idealistic or "delusional." Other people think we are in a "post-racial," "post-partisan" age. We'll see. The current bickering and low blows from both sides is decidedly partisan. You could say that it is in the nature of politics to be partisan. Consensus-building and democracy are only forms of the political process.

We don't have to believe in a new kind of politics to hope that the personal attacks will cease. It's possible to examine issues and even a candidate's credentials without stooping to personal attacks. For instance, I think the public was well-served to know more about Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Senator Obama's relationship with him. It was legitimate for the press to report that Senator Clinton's memory was in error about her trip to Bosnia and the snipers that she thought she remembered. But people can be informed without a candidate being attacked.

However, it would be nice to get back to talking about more substantive policy issues in the media and on the campaign trail. It's too bad we can't go ahead and have a three-way debate between Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain. Then we might feel like we're making some progress again.

Comments

[hrayovac]

Carlotta, I agree with your sentiment but I really don't make connections the way you do. Real life is not Google where you match person A's words with person B's beliefs simply because they appear on the same page as a computer search. Barack Obama's campaign is nothing if not a high ground campaign, a strong departure from the smear and sensational. You cannot connect the Obama campaign to the personal question asked at a highly publicized televsion event controlled and choregraphed by Hillary surrogates of which Chelsea is one. This is not royalty a la Great Britain.
Did you understand the purpose of Evan Strange's question? The set up to Chelsea was a perfect one. His stated purpose was to show Hillary's strength. Of course that was accomplished by the answer given. I will fall short of saying this was planned but if it wasn't it certainly satisfied the mission. That's ok. But it is phony and Strange being interviewed and the clip shown repeatedly is called free TV coverage. That was done to keep Hillary in the race. Smart.

[S1m0n]

I don't know about you, but I've been startled in the past month by the number of women unloading on Silda, Eliot Spitzer's wife, for the crime of standing beside him at his press conference.

Haven't you noticed? They've been brutal. If that's what people are thinking, asking about how the scandal affects Hillary's rep is apt enough.

[PTTY]

Bill Clinton says let's have a fight arugument.

So therefore we can bring up Monica, Blue Dress, Bimbo eruption, Death of Vince Foster, etc.

Chelsea is out there you can say her Parents, ARE PIMPING HER OUT, the slang of the day.

Bill Clinton says anything goes so they better stop crying, if they do not want Chelsea being asked questions, they better taker her out the kitchen and take off her football pads.

Bill Clinton you can not cherry pick.

[mrJJ]

Err ask the Clinton supporter who asked Chelsea the question.. He was interviewed on CNN & MSNBC. OH wait!!!! are you trying to say it was another candudates supporter??? ROFLMAO

[PTTY]

Do you think it was a Repug asking that question to get her ready if her Mom wins the Nomination?

You know the Repugs will relieve the 90's in full with no HOles barred.

[Desiderata]

I agree with you Carlotta Cooper. I am very opposed to Hillary Clinton ever becoming President of the United State, yet questioning Chelsea Clinton about this sordid history of her parents is wrong. The children are the true victims of a parent who commits a serious betrayal of the other.

As far as I have gathered, this is the only question Chelsea balked at answering while campaigning for her mother (other than those of reporters). She was right to tell the student that her thoughts about what impact her father's betrayal had on her mother was none of his business.

And I believe Barack Obama himself would feel the same way.