Under Pressure

This is the first I'm hearing of Chelsea Clinton's questioning by a Butler University student about whether her mother's credilibility was affected by her handling of the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Perez has the story, as well as Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence's USA Today blog.

Memmott and Lawrence's blog poses its readers a question, asking, "Did Chelsea Clinton handle the 'Lewinsky' question well?" Since, I happened to come across it, I figure I might as well post a response.

In my opinion, Clinton, who responded "I do not think that is any of your business," to the student, Evan Strange, was entirely within rights to do so. She was only about 18 when the investigation and controversy surrounding Lewinksy were at their greatest heights, so I don't know why people wouldn't take this into account and offer up some sensitivity in this situation. I believe her reaction to an extremely difficult matter such as her father's public infidelity when she was merely a teenager was similar to that of what most daughter's would say under such quick pressure to respond. One has to put themselves in her shoes and imagine what she felt when the question was brought up. I mean, I know she has been dealing with this all for a very long time and is used to people prying into the private life of her family, but that doesn't mean she's ever become okay with it. I know that Strange claims to be a Clinton supporter who was only trying to question Chelsea about difficulties her mother might face in light of her handling of that situation, but it was still certainly a ballsy question to pose. I don't believe he was out of line, but I think that he, along with everyone else, should accept the response it drew without critique.

My bottom line here: Chelsea Clinton is not running for president, her mother is. I don't think she is obligated to speak out about personal matters relating to the actions of her parents if she doesn't wish to delve into them willingly.

I appreciated The Washington Post's questioning of "Is it Fair to Ask Chelsea Clinton About Lewinsky?" Check out the comments left under the brief article, they are varied and many quite interesting.

Also, here's the video of the incident, in case you haven't seen it:

And the Pinocchio goes to...

Today in class we watched the latest popular YouTube hit centered on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Huffington Post's RJ Eskow did an excellent blog post about this situation, the most interesting quote of his being the following:

"If they wanted to, the networks could juxtapose video of Sen. Clinton's dramatic recitation of the battle with this clip of that sweet eight-year-old on the tarmac with a bouquet. The question is: Will they want to?"

We've now seen, via the above video link, that that is exactly what has been done. I have to reiterate some of the thoughts from our class discussion. In this technological age of information, why do political candidates keep lying about things that can easily be proven as falsehoods? First, Mitt Romney made outrageous false claims about watching his father march with Martin Luther King, and now this? C'mon, candidates, where are your speech writers? Well, apparently (at least according to The Huffington Post's update above) Hillary's are busy making up proper statements to tidy up this bad situation. Wouldn't it be easier to just prepare moving, honest speeches in the first place, though? Maybe years ago politicians could get away with lying, at least for a fairly extended period of time, but these days the minute one spouts out a lie, people are ready and raring to go to do their research. All I can say is, I hope Obama and McCain can manage to avoid embarassment for the duration of their campaigns, just to leave us voters with some benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, I was on CNN and discovered that Hillary has more than one video circulating around. Below, a Chilean man portrays her in a YouTube parody dubbed "Little Hillary":

South Park Saves Spears?

I used to not be too big of a fan of South Park, but it's grown on me recently now that I've seen the smart social commentary that lurks behind those annoying voices. I also don't want anyone to think I'm a huge Britney Spears fan because I've blogged about her more than once, but this particular subject begs for some spotlight and attention.

In an episode entitled "Britney's New Look," that aired last week, South Park ripped on the swarms of paparazzi that regularly flank Spears by having its main characters decide to join in on the madness of stalking her and then come to regret their decision when she shoots herself. I know South Park usually doesn't bother to censor itself, but Spears's apparent "suicide" was quite a shocker to me--except that a minute later in the episode you find out that Britney has only shot her head off, an action that results in a hilarious sequence in which her managers spin it as another example of her reinventing herself. The press and industry insiders then jumps all over this new story, a man in the recording studio remarking how stupid she is, to which one of the boys comically marvels that is a given because she no longer has a brain. Although, the kids try to protect her, Spears is ultimately photographed to death by the paparazzi who explain they are doing it as a human sacrifice. It is revealed at the very end of the episode that Miley Cyrus is their next victim. Only on South Park.

I was fully expecting for South Park to make jabs at Spears throughout the entire episode, but it was a pleasant surprise to see the show defending her and making a statement about how harmful the paparazzi's constant presence in her life could prove to be. This episode is being talked about all over the web, from The Huffington Post to E!Online. Everyone seems to be highly amused and impressed by the episode, but what I would like to see is a response from Spears or Cyrus about the show. I don't know if it's too easy to be appreciative when you are also partly the butt of the joke.

Below is the episode if you're interested, it is available both here and here, but it's tough to find on YouTube because many of the clips have been taken down.

Bad Boys

Any blog entry entitled "New Jersey Vs. New York: The Great Governor Skank Off" is surely something I'm going to read. Mo Rocca at AOL News posted this item yesterday, but I just came across it. I highly suggest everyone go read it, especially if you're tired of all these headlines lately being generated by promiscuous politicians. I found it to be a really funny satirical item. My favorite of Rocca's lines is the following:

"Then over the skies of Albany appeared a crusader, someone willing to get right in there: sexual dive bomber Eliot Spitzer. Even though he had an Anne Archer-smoking hot wife, he was eager to risk it all (career and clap) to save the reputation of NY's governorship."

I find Rocca's witty coverage refreshing compared to articles such as this in The Independent that takes more pleasure in mocking the doings of these men than the media circus of tales of sexual misconduct that has resulted. I also found it slightly more relevant than this blog entry by John Woestendiek at the Baltimore Sun who speaks of the likenesses between Eliot Spitzer and the Spitz breed of dog (split screen picture comparison and all!).

In light of all this rehashing of such tabloid-esque material, I'd also like to share this YouTube video I found:

T Trouble on St. Patty's Day..I can relate

I'm going to link over to 9 Neighbors and the Ms Maggie Moo Talks 2 U blog for this little piece inspired by "Maggie's" complaints about attempting to travel on the T on St. Patrick's Day. For all those not quite familiar with the Boston lingo, the T is what others just refer to as the subway, short for MBTA. It is relatively simple to navigate(at least compared to my trips to NYC) and definitely an inexpensive travel option for getting around the city.

HOWEVER, riding the T on St. Patrick's Day is quite an experience. I'd like to quote "Maggie" with the following brief anecdote:

"After dinner and the yummiest margaritas, I made my way back. My travels on the red line was OK and normal-but when I got to my green line, craziness ensued.Why? Because all of the students from the 2 colleges I live between were coming back from the airport. They were sports teams and had TONS of bags. In addition,people were still coming back from the pubs and they were extremely smelly and extremely drunk. Normally, this would be funny, but when you are wedged between a large man in a mustard colored leather jacket and a small old Asian woman who's breath smells like dog poop, it just makes you angry."

She then goes on to basically apologize for the pointless rant, but I would like to take this opportunity to wholly agree with her thoughts and offer up my own St. Patrick's Day story. Last year, while also travelling on the green line on the night before the infamous Irish holiday, the T was so jam packed with people that you were literally touching about 20 random strangers at once and bumping into all of them every time the train lurched. Oh, and everybody was also drunk and attempting to lead sing-alongs at the top of their lungs. Oh, and one of my friends was offered a shot by the people next to her. Another got her butt grabbed by the man behind her who kept inconspicuously NOT avoiding the bumping. So, don't feel too bad, "Maggie." We've all been there, it's just part of the charm.

Take a look at 9 Neighbors if you are living in the Boston area. I really enjoyed checking it out because the postings were both entertaining and very easy to relate to. Everyone enjoys when you know exactly what someone's talking about. I found it to be accessible to a wide variety of people and their personal interests, showcasing blogs about all types of items and news. If you are getting weary of Boston.com, it's a fun substitute.

Couple's Engagement is "Up in the Air"

I can't help but post a link to this story that I just found on Yahoo!News. Apparently, a man in London thought up what he deemed to be the most perfect proposal--to place a $12,000 engagement ring for his girlfriend inside of a helium balloon and then literally "pop the question" by giving her a pin to pop open the balloon. Maybe the man, Lefkos Hajji, should've considered Murphy's Law when he thought up this clever idea, though, for a burst of wind carried his pricey proposal up into the sky as he was walking out of the shop. Now, he is claiming that his angry girlfriend is refusing to talk to him until he buys her a new ring. Wow.

This was all originally reported by The Sun, which I know is not the most credible source, but I think it's a great story to pass along. If indeed this actually happened to Hajji, instead of being a mere publicity stunt, I can't help but feel for the guy. In theory, the idea is sweet and romantic and I certainly have never heard of it before. I also feel, however, that that's $12,000 he'll never see again. The confrontation with his girlfriend must have really been something to hear, too. Can you imagine? "Honey, I was planning to propose, but I put the ring in a balloon and it flew away. It did cost me $12,000, though." It sounds too ridiculous to be true, which when it comes to The Sun I think could be entirely possible.

I repeat, however, if all of this really did go down--that's some tough luck. Better to get that stuff out of the way now, rather than after you're married, though.

I tried my luck with Paint for the above. ^ Sorry about the amateur art work. :D

Oops! They Did It Again

Yesterday, it was reported that some employees at the UCLA Medical Center are soon to be fired due to a confidentiality breach. The employees apparently snooped through the medical files concerning Britney Spears's most recent stay at the hospital. Apparently, there is no evidence that any of the employees sold information to tabloids, but they are still in violation of state and federal laws that ensure medical privacy.

While, I realize that Spears certainly puts a lot of herself out there, I still don't think she deserves for her rights to be put into question and I support these actions by the hospital. If you go to the popular tabloid site, X17, you can watch videos of the paparazzi hounding Spears and the mass of people coming at her and yelling things at her is absolutely ridiculous. It is no wonder that it has taken her so long to get back on the right track. These people pretend to care about her by often doing little favors for her, such as bringing her gas, but they also make a living by taping and photographing her in various sad/embarrassing states. While, it has not been reported that the employees of the hospital were attempting to sell their findings to the paparazzi, I can't help but assume that they, too, were invading Spears's life to make some extra cash.

I think it's kind of pathetic that the law can so rarely protect Spears, but I'm happy that in this instance her rights are being kept safe.

Rejected

I was looking around Boston.com and found an interesting featured article entitled "The college rejection letter," which appeared in a column by the Globe's late David Nyhan in 1987. The Globe claims in the article that they have often re-printed this when this time of year swings around again. Give it a read--I think it's especially intriguing to anyone who has ever gone through the college application process.

While reading, a very specific memory was jogged in my mind. My senior year of high school, around this time of year, a student at the very top of my class was phoned in the middle of the school day by his father to tell him he had gotten a "small envelope." I remember being able to read his emotions straight off his face--like it was the end of the world. Fortunately, it turns out the letter was only a deferral. A few months later he'd learn that he was accepted.

Like the article says, though, there are many teenagers who don't get a happy ending to this experience. When it comes down to it, it's extremely hard to face blatant rejection. Even if someone is reminded that it was only their application that was rejected, one can't help but think that that application represented who they are, ultimately making it a rejection of them.

One flaw that I actually found within the column is that it attempts to speak to a limited population. It is speaking to those rejected, but not all of them. It specifically narrows down the field to those who had average grades, didn't participate enough, and didn't have the best SAT scores. But, that is not always the case. I knew plenty of people in high school who had a lot going on for them, but still didn't get into their dream school. It's a little negligent to say it's only those who slacked who are getting those small envelopes. Often, it is those who tried really hard, but still didn't make the cut who need an article like this to reach out to them. Then again, it was written in 1987--a time when the competition wasn't nearly as intense as it has grown to be in 2008.

The most unfortunate thing about this column, however, is the probable small percentage of high school students that actually pick up a paper to read it.

All or Nothing for Obama?

Under an hour ago, MSNBC posted this news item about Barack Obama declaring during a speech in Mississippi that it should not be assumed that he will accept the vice presidential slot on Hillary Clinton's ticket. CBS offers a meatier version, as well.

In an apparent jab at Clinton's recent hinting that she would welcome the partnership, Obama went as far as quipping, "I don't know how somebody in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is in first place." He aimed to make it clear that people had to choose between the two of them because they weren't going to be handed both. He also made another pointed remark about how he finds it interesting that Hillary doesn't believe him to be ready for the presidency, but would gladly make him her second-in-command.

Now, this is something that has always bothered me about politics. Must the candidates sneer and jeer like this? Can't they find it in themselves to be above all of the name calling and finger pointing for once? And would a partnership between two candidates whose nomination would be making leaps and bounds for their respective race and gender really be so awful?

I realize that Obama feels his opponent is attempting to manipulate the undecided, but I don't think his approach is altogether smart. I, for one, find myself split between the two of them and I think that his reaction actually plays more into her hand than anything.

His response rubbed me the wrong way, but I can't really put my finger on exactly why. I think there was just something about the arrogance of his joking that made it unappealing to me. Everyone wants their candidate to be self-assured, but there's a fine line between that and just plain cocky.

Barack, you may be in the lead, as you flaunted in your speech, but remember that you should never count your chickens before they've hatched.