March 26, 2008
College Student Inadvertently Upsets Chelsea, While Howard Dean Riles Republicans with Remarks About Young Voters
The college student who offended Chelsea Clinton with a question about the Monica Lewinsky scandal at an event on the Butler University campus yesterday says he was only trying to give Ms. Clinton the chance to show how strong her mother is.
“It’s not something I asked to cause trouble,” said Evan Strange in an appearance on the CBS Early Show. Rather, he said, “it was an opportunity for Chelsea to show all the doubters how strong Hillary is.”
Mr. Strange, who describes himself as a Clinton supporter, says friends often ask him “what makes her such a strong leader?” and “they always bring up the scandal.”
At the event, Mr. Strange asked Ms. Clinton if the scandal had damaged her mother’s reputation. The former first daughter appeared taken aback, responding “Wow, 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.”
Meanwhile, the former presidential candidate Howard Dean made waves in another college town yesterday, saying there is “no future” for young people in the Republican party.
In a speech before party faithfuls in Madison, Wis., Democratic National Committee Chairman Dean said that the party’s lack of diversity has alienated young voters.
“Who in their right mind, if they were African-American or Hispanic or Asian-American, if they were gay or lesbian, would join the Republican party,” he said. When young people look at the Republican voters, he added, they see “1950s television.”
Sara Mikolajczak, chair of the University of Wisconsin College Republicans, called Mr. Dean’s remarks “complete and total BS.”
“We have people in the CR’s who come from all different multicultural backgrounds,” she told the independent student newspaper, The Badger Herald.
Kelly Field | Posted on Wednesday March 26, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: AAU Offers Science Policy Agenda for Presidential Campaigns
Next: Surge in Youth Voting Accompanies Presidential Candidates
With spokesmen like Howard Dean, the Dems don’t need campaign destroyers like the hate-spewing Jerry Wright.
— observation Mar 26, 02:26 PM #
The sex scandals have everything to do with being First Gentleman. Bill Clinton has shown himself to be a reckless and stupid man, and if he gets to the White House yet again, he will once again embarrass the country and this time the President. He’s a horrible liability, and Hillary cannot be elected simply because of this. Sound trite? Consider this: while Clinton spent two years wholly distracted by sex scandals, Al Qaeda was putting the finishing touches on their plan. For all we know, he might have very well been blackmailed. Do you honestly want these fools back in charge?
— marci Mar 26, 02:27 PM #
McCain looks better and better all the time…someone should ask “Professor” Obama if he shares Dean’s lunacy.
— TRB Mar 26, 02:49 PM #
Chelsea’s response shows what the country has known for a long time – no Clinton can be trusted. When you start expecting them to be honest and truthful, they immediately turn mean and aggressive. With that many skeletons in the closet (Lewinsky, Flowers, Whitewater, etc.), can you blame them?
— Profet Mar 26, 03:22 PM #
You have to agree with marci. It would be the height of lunacy for America to re-elect the Clinton duo to the White House. They did enough damage to the institution of the US Presidency for a century!
— harris Mar 26, 03:24 PM #
Oh, yeah Marci, we’re so much better off now than when we had a “reckless and stupid” president like Clinton.
Bush had bin Laden surrounded in a hole in the ground and let him get away.
“rather fight them there than fight them here”—never has a more cowardly position been advocated by an American administration.
The “fools” aren’t my favs in the campaign, but I’d take them far more readily than what we have now.
— D Himes Mar 26, 03:29 PM #
Marci says:
“Bill Clinton has shown himself to be a reckless and stupid man…”
We have tapped the Clinton haters with this article and they are still as venomous as when he was in office.
In the past seven years I have gotten to observe “stupidity and recklessenes” that exceeds Clinton’s by a significant coeffcient! Where have you people been?
— Droste Mar 26, 03:34 PM #
Hey, D Himes (#6), check it out . . . Bush is not running for reelection! Marci was not comparing the Clintons to Bush, though I’m sure she’s quite capable of doing so, should she want to.
— PA Man Mar 26, 03:37 PM #
I must assume that harris and marci are writing tongue in cheek. The height of lunacy was reached when slightly less that half the US voters re-elected in 2004 the man who is likely to be regarded by history as the worst president in the history of the country. Sure, Bill Clinton was (and is) a jerk, but the only thing he did that many presidents before him did not do was lie about “having sex with that woman”. Do you really think that compares to the unjustified slaughter of 4000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi’s? Lunacy? Read posts 2-5, then pick your lunatics.
— Art Broom Mar 26, 03:41 PM #
I was a Hillary supporter and voted for her in the Ohio primary. However with the running from snipers in Bosinia then trying to deflect the heat from that by bringing up Obama’s minister in Pgh. yesterday. It’s getting ugly folks!
— mjb Mar 26, 03:51 PM #
Howard Dean is a loose cannon and manages to hurt his party about every other time he opens his mouth. That said, at least he didn’t start a war. Chelsea ought to have expected that question. And I’m an Independent who leans Democrat.
There is no point in political attacks in this venue. Unfortunately the folks who hate everything Democrat seem to have trouble from refraining.
— Al Mar 26, 03:58 PM #
Chelsea’s response was not inappropriate, though I’m sorry that the student asking it meant no harm and he didn’t get a real response for it. It sucks that Chelsea and Hillary have to deal with what Bill did.
Dean’s remarks are a little crazy. This happens all of the time. Young people are democrats. They evolve into republicans later on when they realize they’ll be taxed. It’s true that gays and minorities aren’t that enticed by the republican party, but they also don’t make up most of the population (and some of them have specific reasons for being republicans anyway.)
— last Mar 26, 04:02 PM #
Response to #9: I’m certainly not defending Bush, but he was not reelected with “slightly less than half the votes” in 2004; in fact, he was reelected with approx 51% of the votes — the first time since 1988 that a president received more than 50% of the vote (remember that Bill Clinton in 1992 got only 43% of the votes and didn’t break the 50% level when he was reelected in 1996).
— Bob Mar 26, 04:06 PM #
Right on, Art Broom!
“PA Man” says Bush isn’t running, as though this makes him irrelevant. Bush’s party is fielding a candidate, John McCain’t, aka “Bush Lite,“whom the media will not be able to continue to protect once the general election campaign begins in earnest. If McCain were elected, he would be a Republican president, not an Independent president. People tend to forget this.
The Clintons, whom I once admired deeply, have disgraced themselves with their sleazy personal assault on Obama since going into Ohio and Texas.
Obama is the only candidate left standing for those who wish to dig out of the muck left by eight years of W, who care deeply about America’s standing in the world and about social and economic justice in this country,who are concerned about the life our grandchildren will have, and who yearn to elevate political discourse.
The question posed to Chelsea was unfortunate, but obviously well-intentioned.
Who can argue with Howard Dean’s observation, whether or not his articulating it was appropriate in that context?
— /case hardened Mar 26, 04:14 PM #
Is that Howard “dingbat” again. What a goofie guy he is. Dying for a little bit of attentiion and handing the Repubs another four years in the WH.
— james oakley Mar 26, 04:24 PM #
Contrary to #9’s assertion, Bill Clinton—whom I voted for twice—did a lot of damage. His government supported the neoliberal economic restructuring of both Latin America and Russia, wrecking havoc on the economies of both, with the consequence that we now have Putin in power with 70%+ backing from the Russian people along with a new Cold War with Russia and the “pink tide” in command of 80% of Latin America. Senator Clinton doesn’t understand any of this, having lumped Hugo Chavez together with the dictators of Iran and North Korea, even though Chavez was last re-elected with over 60% of the popular vote. As for domestic policy, read this from one expert (the late Linda Faye Williams) on the Clinton Administration’s social policies: “there is no gainsaying that by the time the Clinton years ended, the nation had witnessed the most conservative changes in social policy it had experienced in sixty years” (The Constraint of Race, p. 277). So, yes, Bill Clinton did real damage to this country on both foreign policy and domestic fronts. We can ill afford a repeat of those years, yet Senator Clinton boasts of her time in the White House as providing her with greater “experience” than Obama has. That kind of experience we don’t need!
— Sandy Mar 26, 04:34 PM #
LOL, Sandy.
— D Himes Mar 26, 04:44 PM #
Ms. Clinton seemed to take the question personally, when it seems the questioner did not mean it that way. The Lewinsky-Clinton scandal was so important to the country at the time that it is entirely legitimate to look into how it affected/affects Sen. Clinton. When it comes to public figures at this level, “none of your business” hardly ever is an appropriate response. If Ms. Clinton is going to go on the hustings for her mother, then she has to accept such fair-game questions as this.
— paulo Mar 26, 05:57 PM #
Let’s not get ridiculous here. To criticize the Clintons for disgracing America, for lying (recall Bill’s perjury and debarrment), for obfuscating the truth (the Bosnia story of “great peril” to Hillary and Chelsea), for the political fiasco of Hillary’s White Elephant healthcare proposal, for her dubious (and possibly illegal) role in Whitewater, and for her viciious frontal attacks on anyone who challenges her “entitlement” to the Presidency — I think these are ample grounds for concerned citizens to raise in a forum of “supposed” intellectuals. I find it shocking that some of you dare to castigate marci and me for Democrat-bashing!
— harris Mar 26, 10:06 PM #
Mr. Strange got his answer. It just wasn’t the answer he was looking for. He now knows why the Clinton campaign hasn’t addressed this issue before: Because Hillary is a weak leader with a damaged reputation. His friends were right.
— Tracy G. Mar 27, 11:03 AM #
Not so fast, case hardened (#14). Obama apparently isn’t all that influencial or successful as a leader, either. He was either unwilling to stand up to his mentor or unable to convince him to “elevate” his discourse. The real issue for Obama is not whether Wright was right or wrong, it’s that Obama says he fundamentally disagrees with Wright, but is either unable or unwilling to lead him—and that’s just one person who Obama knows well. Not too long ago they were saying that this election is the Dem’s to lose. It looks like the Dems may have succeeded.
— Tracy G. Mar 27, 11:22 AM #
To #21, Obama is apparently influential and successful, as he LEADS in the popular vote and the delegate count. No one person can influence everyone. Rev. Jerry Falwell blamed Americans for 9/11. Obviously, Republicans could not lead him away from making such statements, nor could they lead Rev.John Hagee ( a McCain supporter) away from blaming the people of Louisiana for Katrina. As I’ve said before, I can deal with people (Falwell, Wright, Hagee) talking out their frustrations, as long as they don’t do a “Timothy McVey” and blow up a building, killing innocent men, women, and children.
— Ve Mar 27, 03:08 PM #
Well, I don’t believe either Jerry Falwell or John Hagee are close associates of McCain, much less mentors. Nice try, though. Obama’s close, long-term, personal relationship with Wright possess a special problem for him.
— Tracy G. Mar 27, 03:53 PM #
I’m having trouble believing that the responses I am reading are actually from readers of CHE …. Marci? Sandy?? Hines — “LOL”??? Hmmmmm.
— BPTelford Mar 27, 04:31 PM #
To #23, My statements are more than a nice try. They are the truth. Your argument was that Obama couldn’t influence Wright, and now that you have to deal with the fact that the Republicans couldn’t influence the late Falwell, (although they seemed to warmly embrace him) or the still living Hagee, you seem to change your argument to say that the real problem is that Wright is a mentor of Obama. (I don’t know if Obama ever referred to Wright as his mentor, but I will accept your position that he did. I know he referred to him as his spiritual adviser and said that he led him to Jesus—my paraphrase of Obama’s actual statements.) Wright has not influenced Obama’s political thoughts. I also don’t believe Hagee has influenced McCain to the point that McCain has a negative attitude/opinion of Catholics or gays, although I confess that I really don’t know how McCain feels about Catholics and gays. I know that Rev. Wright’s church has no problem with gays. I’m not a McCain supporter, but I try to focus on the real issues: Iraq, the economy, healthcare (at least as I see them).
Also, I suggest that other readers (fair-minded ones) of this blog go on youtube and look and listen to longer versions of what Rev. Wright said. I still don’t agree with everything he said, but once you see the entire video, as opposed to 10 seconds, it puts his comments in a different light. I can understand why Obama says that the 10 second clips are not all that he knows of the man.
You may be right about the Republicans winning the presidency. For those of you who support McCain and his 100 year war, I just hope you have enough young people in your family to keep it going.
— Ve Mar 27, 05:06 PM #
Aw, shucks … to paraphrase Bill Clinton, “Let’s saddle up and have an argument … isn’t that what America’s about?”
What hath gotten into America to elect this loser and now to even “consider” his wife as a candidate for the Presidency. Are we all losing our sense of morality and decency?
— harris Mar 27, 11:57 PM #
I can’t believe that people such as Mr. / Ms. Harris has reduced eight years of the Clinton presidency to the Lewinsky scandal and the fact that President Clinton comes from the South. Do you really think that misbehaving with an intern outweighs all the harm that Bush, Jr. and his wondrous Vice President, Mr. Chaney, have done to our economy, our international prestige, and, worst of all, the Bill of Rights? If so, I think you need to look though the other side of your binoculars!
— Phil Schwartz Mar 28, 11:51 AM #
Sandy (# 16) —- You apparently have gotten to the nub of the matters on hand.
The seeds sown by the Clinton Administration took a while to germinate, grow, blossom, and bear fruit —— fruits that we can now enjoy.
The Bush Administration, apart from its ineptitude, transgressions, callousness, etc., in many respects merely tended to the plants planted by the Clinton Administration —- An Administration that gave Carte Blanche to businesses and special interests.
Among the litany of policies that haunt us today —- don’t forget the Banking Degregulations —- which dismantled 70 plus years of laws which were created to avoid a repeat of the circumstances that resulted in the “Great Depression.”
And, while we are at it lets not forget the Exxon-Mobil merger, and the creation of virtual oil monopolies.
Nor, can we ignore Iraq, remember the diversionary tactics —- Clinton’s bombing of Iraq any time there was an issue in the news that needed to be dislodged from the headlines (including the Monica scandal) —- see the movie which parodies the same (Wag the Dog). Apropos, these repeated bombings of Iraq served the Bush Adminsitration in achieving its desiderata (albiet with with widespread enthusiastic Democratic support in the Congress).
Remember the various “Usary Laws” which many States had in order to avoid predatory interest rate charges —— heck, not only were they crushed, instead we now have a scenario whereby the Banks can change the terms of its agreements with the consumer for no rhyme or reason (read the inserts enclosed with the credit card statements) —— additionally, consider the myth of credit scores which can easily be manipulated and changed solely by the action of the Bank wanting to raise your interest rate (example one has a balance of $2,000 on a credit line of $10,000; i.e a 20% use of credit —- now the bank decides to lower the credit line to $4,000, which in turn changes the use of credit to 50% from 20%, therby lowering the credit score, and enabling the raising of interest charges —— forget choice, for it is the lowered credit score which other Banks also look at —— and, for those who advocate “get rid of the cards use cash,’ suffice to say they have not thought through the ramifications of buying airline tickets, making car rental reservations, hotel reservations, etc.).
The list of various fruits which are resulting from the Clintonian planted seeds is considerable, so for the sake of brevity let me end with following:
Remember, how inflation was lowered —- yes lowered with help of redefining what’s in the basket and how it is weighted (of course this has been further refined) —— ergo, we have had low inflation for all these years 3% or so, however, almost everything outpaced inflation —— food, energy, education, property taxes, health costs, etc., whilst most individual components of inflation galloped along at double digits, their so-called average crawled along at a meger 3% or so.
Now consider the ramifications of the aforesaid, social security checks, pensions, etc. only increased by 3% or so —— ipso facto lowering government and business cash outflows at the expense of the populace in general ——- this, lower inflation figure is a major contributor to the real lowering of the average wages, for the empolyer could easily say “good job, Joe or Jill, I am giving you a 6% increase —- sounds good because inflation is only 3% —— imagine how the employer would sound when the employer said “good job, Joe or Jill, I am giving you a 6% increase —- if inflation was pegged at 12% instead of 3%).
Wonder, how the gap between Joe Average and Joe Not-So-Average widened so significantly in the recent years? Just examine some of what the Clinton’s started —— What the Clintonians started in many instances has grown exponentially thanks to the Bushies —— please look at issues objectively, and consider the origins, please don’t just look at the plants/fruits —— ignoring the seeds, and when they were planted ——- And, on pondering on the elections don’t forget a populist Gerry Brown (former governor of California), who refused any contribution of greater than $100 lost the nomination to Clinton in 1992 —— Brown met his Waterloo ironical in NY primaries thanks to the Clinton brand of political smearing coupled with special interests commandos, especially those who were ired by the “proposed changes” he was likely to bring to Washington.
— zahid Mar 29, 12:46 PM #
I mean, when you really think about it, what on earth is there to talk about with Chelsea other than Monica Lewinsky. It was the only event of any note during her father’s presidency, and what else does she bring to the table other than a life of privilege and a BA from Stanford. Bupkas!
— original marci Apr 10, 05:26 PM #