Talk:Chelsea Clinton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Jenna and Barbara

Has Chelsea Clinton ever met Jenna and Barbara Bush, the twins? Just wondering. 204.52.215.107 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Saturday Night Live Moment

I just wanted to point out another semi-controversial SNL skit. I believe Madonna was host or musical guest and sang "Happy Birthday" to Phil Hartman's president Clinton in parody of Marilyn Monroe's serenade of JFK. From what I remember, Madonna winks towards the balcony box where the Clinton's are sitting, Hartman points to himself and Madonna shakes her head. The actress portraying Hillary does the same and once again, Madonna shakes her head, then mouths the words "not you, her," pointing towards Julia Sweeney who plays Chelsea. I remember the skit sparking a minor controversy at the time.

Yes it goes with the rumor of Hillary 2009-2016 & Chelsea 2017-2024 Presidential dynasty in the planning. That is, Chelsea is being politically groomed during her mother's campaign to follower her and become the first President to openly declare she is a lesbian after gaining office. Although after Bill gets kicked out in 2013 and Hillary is always thereafter escorted by a female adviser "to avoid potential tabloid scandal" -- people will always suspect in retrospect that.... But we'll have to wait and see on any such rumors. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did Rush Limbaugh make a tasteless joke about Chelsea Clinton?

I have removed the following:

In 1993, when Chelsea was still in braces, Rush Limbaugh said the following: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" He then pointed to a video monitor, which switched to a picture of Chelsea. Although Limbaugh has claimed that it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, since the show was on a tape delay, if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show. In addition, the joke would not have made sense if Limbaugh had not intended for Chelsea's photo to appear on screen, as the White House had no dog. (Buddy did not join the Clinton family until a few years later.)

For the reason that it is completely FALSE.

Sorry, dude, but it's going right back. For one, you haven't proven that the charge was false. It should be reinstated as, if nothing else, an accusation that no one has denied. We don't need the input of anonymous Limbaugh-apologists on this page out to do damage control while sacrificing accuracy. PatrickLMT (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is true: "On November 6, 1992, three days after her father won the elections, in a reference to who is moving in and out of White House, Limbaugh made a reference to Chelsea and Millie, the dog of outgoing President George H. W. Bush. At the moment where Limbaugh said "cute kid," the picture of Millie appeared onscreen. Limbaugh apologized during that show and gave a more lengthy apology a few days later. "

Here is the (partial) transcript:

RUSH LIMBAUGH

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)

November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

Now, after this incident, Rush swore off mentioning Chelsea on his show ever again (at least in a negative way and unless Chelsea made a bit of news that was too big not to be mentioned). Rush certainly did NOT go on about Chelsea for a second time in 1993 to compare her to a dog! That quote is phony. It was invented out of the mind of columnist Molly Ivins. (in a Arizona Republic 10/17/93 article which is why some people are putting that fictious quote in 1993)

Note that the person who inserted the phony info, had the proper date for the correct incident, but only an unambiguous "1993" for the phony incident. Citing no specific date.

"if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show."

Nope. In order to take something out of the program, something would have had to be put in to replace it. And how much of the error do they take out? A couple seconds? The entire segment? Rush did not do retakes and the show was aired only a matter of hours after it was taped. There was NO time to take anything out. Rush's show was aired as is. Mistakes and all. A light blows. It stayed. Flies flying around the studio, it stayed.

"In addition, the joke would not have made sense if Limbaugh had not intended for Chelsea's photo to appear on screen, as the White House had no dog. (Buddy did not join the Clinton family until a few years later.) "

This is assuming that Rush had made that tasteless joke in 1993. Which he hadnt, not in 1993 or at any other time.

In November 1992, he was doing a comparison of IN/OUT lists that were appearing in newspaper and magazine columns at the time. There were dozens of them. Rush was noting the bias of these lists as well.(he pointed out how many time he was on the "out" lists" and how many democrats,l ike the clintons, were on the "in" lists.)

Transcript: "Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to..."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.139.23.50 (talk • contribs) .

Please cite that the 1993 incidenct is false. --Asbl 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please cite that the incident is false? I thought I already did on this page ! And the burden of proof is upon Rush's accusers. NO ONE can prove a negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.139.23.50 (talk • contribs) .

If you can cite that Limbaugh denied the incident ever took place, we can add it to the article. The only reason to remove the paragraph would be if the accusers withdrew the statements. --Asbl 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh has never denied the (correct) Nov. 1992 incident took place. He has never spoken about the false incident attributed to him in 1993, as far as I know.

In that case, we definitely have to keep the paragraph, as you are the only one who claims that the incident never took place. Wikipedia requires verifyability --Asbl 20:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"verifiabillity"? What kind of verifiabillity did the person who originally posted the (phony) info give? Does he/she have a statement from Limbaugh admitting the (phony) version of events? A transcript? A video clip??? Rush's show was viewed by millions (Myself included) Where are the eyewitnesses? I never missed a show. If I couldnt watch it due to the time (it changed around alot), I taped it. I certainly did NOT see any such incident take place (I saw the Nov. 1992 incident take place. I did not see the "1993" incident take place, EVER.)

Allow me to point out: Rush's show made that mistake when they showed a pic of chelsea when Rush asked for a pic of Millie. That incident got retold in the telling (half the time it is attributed to 1992. That is, untill someone came up with the official transcript. Then Limbaugh's critics, rather than admit they were wrong about it, decided to change their story to 'the incident in question occured at a different time, in 1993'.).

(Speak of the devil, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

"On November 6, 1992, three days after the election, in reference to who was in and out at the White House, Limbaugh joked on air that he didn't know Bill Clinton had a pet dog, and held up a picture of Chelsea.[citation needed]"

One wishes that his critics would put their heads together and agree on the specific details of the lies they will tell about him.)

Also, the person who posted this (false) info, changed it from: "Rush asked: 'Did you know there was a white house dog?' and then supposedly HOLDS up a photo of chelsea. According to Rush's critics who occasionaly bring up this incident claimed he HELD UP the photo of Chelsea in his hand.

Someone on the internet went to Lexis Nexis to see a transcript, and found only the Nov. 1992 incident. There it is seen what Rush really said and did. For one, he did NOT hold up any photos. All photos were flashed on a video monitor. Clearly, the person who posted the phony info read the transcript and changed his story accordingly. He changed it from "held up a photo" to this: "He then pointed to a video monitor, which switched to a picture of Chelsea." He also changed the year of the incident to 1993 in order to make his objectional observations ("the joke would not have made sense if Limbaugh had not intended for Chelsea's photo to appear on screen, as the White House had no dog. (Buddy did not join the Clinton family until a few years later".) sound more reasonable and logical --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.0.90 (talk • contribs) .

I guess I am not clear. Are you saying that the two incidents mentioned in the article are one in the same? --Asbl 03:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. There are no two seperate incidents. The Nov. 1992 incident that I cite (with the transcript) is the one and only incident regarding this issue. The (false 1993) incident, that "1993" story GREW out of the original Nov. 1992 incident over the years. So far I can trace the false "1993" incident down to an innacurate column by Molly Ivins in 1993.

As the years have passed, details got changed in the retelling. So much so that when confronted with the transcript, some people (Rush's critics) rather than admit that they were giving out wrong details about the incident in question, would then turn around and claim (falsely) that the incident they were describing happened in a different episode in a different year. It happened to me a few times. I would be in argument with, well to put it delicately, someone who hated Rush. They pulled out the old (1993) incident saying it was in 1992. I pulled out the transcript showing what really happened in 1992. Rather than admit their mistake, would then insist claim that it happened in another year. One, after being confronted with the transcript tried to put the incident in July of 1993. Of course, Rush was not on the air in the month of July. He went off the air for the summertime. Another attempted to tell me that the incident occured in September of 1996. Of course, Rush's show went off the air for good in June 1996. One claimed he HEARD Rush do it on his radio show. Of course, the incident in question occured on Rush's tv show. Not his radio show. Another, I saw on a message board on the internet, claimed that Rush performed this "chelsea/dog joke" on his tv show at least once a week, every week. (I had to roll my eyes at that one. As a viewer who never missed an episode, I don't recall seeing it being done once, much less once a week every week. I sure as heck would have remembered that!).

It's like Mark Twain has said: "A Lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on"

Sorry, just your assertion that Molly Ivans and The Washington Post are inaccurate are not enough. This seems like original research to me, though if you can source it, it is certainly worth noting. --Ausman 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

___________________

Removed again and I'll tell you why. The person who added that bit of phony (1993) incident, used Al Franken and his book as a source.

"Although Limbaugh has claimed that it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, since the show was on a tape delay, if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show."

So, I went to look at that book, and yes, Franken notes in his book (in a chapter on Sean Hannity where he argues this very issue with Hannity) that Limbaugh claimed it was a technical error. Franken also noted that Rush blamed the behind the scenes tech crew for the foul up. Which is also true. Rush did call it a technical error and blamed it on the behind the scenes crew. But, BUT, Rush did this in 1992, not 1993.

Days after the 1992 incident:

("Who's Sorry Now" is played and Rush points to himself)

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I'm terribly sorry. I don't--look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, she can't control the way she looks. And we really--we do not--we do not do that on this kind of show. So put a picture up of her now and so we can square this.

(Photo shown of Bill and Chelsea Clinton, who is making a sour face)

(Laughter and applause)

LIMBAUGH: All right. We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings. We'll be back with our final segment right after this. Don't go away.

Wow. A "partial" transcript that can only be sourced to a Free Republic message board. Doesn't exactly conform to WP:RS. Not by a country mile. On the other hand, the article now has THREE separate sources verifying that Limbaugh called Chelsea "the White House dog." I don't know what's more sickening: Limbaugh attacking a young girl, or the freeper trolls who come here to (anonymously, of course) pretend the whole thing never happened.

What a disgrace. -- Eleemosynary 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is sourced also from The Washington Post[[1]]. Sorry Allen3, you can't just remove this controversial topic without discussing it first here and at least trying to come to consensus. -- Ausman 05:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that proper sources are available to show what Limbaugh made the statement about there being a White house dog and that an image of Chelsea was displayed exist. This however is tangential to the real issue. It is the unsourced assertion that this was done intentionally by Limbaugh in an effort to criticize or denigrate that is the key problem with the addition. Limbaugh has stated that a mistake was made during the sequence. Based upon your comments on this talk page and at Talk:Rush Limbaugh it is clear that you do not agree with Limbaugh's explanation. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with Limbaugh, his statement could have been nothing more than plausible deniability, but your personal analysis of the events does not constitute satisfactory evidence that Limbaugh was wrong in his explanation of his own actions and motives. Do you have any sources to support your assertion that Limbaugh was being untruthful in his explanation and made a deliberate attack against Chelsea? --Allen3 ^talk 12:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Me, nor anyone else needs to attempt to analyze Limbaugh's motives, to include a quote from The Washington Post, which is considered a reliable source. To my knowledge, Limbaugh has never explained the incident in question after Nov 10, 1992 but if you have a reference for your statement that he has, I would love to see it. In any case, I think it is an important event (if nothing else, see all the comments here and in the Archives of the Talk:Rush Limbaugh) page and we should try to come up with a way to cite it on Wikipedia:Chelsea_Clinton that all parties can agree to. Chelsea Clinton was actually mentioned quite a few times on the Rush Limbaugh show. I have found six times using Lexis-Nexis and there are undoubtedly other incidents. --Ausman 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The ball is in your court now Allen3. I am going to give you a week to come up with a proposed NPOV entry for this. If you continue to maintain that no mention whatsover is acceptable, then I will be forced to reluctantly conclude that you are not negotiating in good faith and I will ask that this topic be mediated. --Ausman 01:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Eleemosynary reverted us back to the old version. I don't find this back and forth editing to be particularly useful, so I will try and come up with something that both sides find acceptable this weekend. Please try to work on the edit, rather than just deleting and restoring people. --Ausman 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I note the Washington Post source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/chelsea.htm is a hearsay editorial account 3 years after the event. A good WP source would have reference a previous article dating from the time of the incident or be that timely news article. I note the Post and other papers do not hold the content of such editorials as having the same degree of authenticity as current event news. Simply put editorials are often fact checked by the author only if at all. In fact editorials can get pretty whack if they aren't by mainline recurring editors. Editorials are printed for discussion and human interest appeal not normally as a source of facts.

Tape delays don't usually allow "Correction" but they do allow elimination and substitution of commercial time or early show change over. Anything Rush aired was intentional. Yes he does spin doctor "incidents" but then he turns around makes it obvious that anyone falling for any spin doctoring is a fool. That is Rush, like many right wing commentators, uses his own show as a demonstration of what he says is pandemic in the left and moderate wing political statements.

Lets be honest Chelsea was NOT a good looking child. Would Rush mention that sort of thing? In a heartbeat. Its not PC but it was true and most everyone else was thinking it. Fortunately Chelsea has now learned to cosmetically work what she has until she is quite beautiful in an exotic way. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is that Rush never forced the Washington Post to print a timely retraction - not whether the event took place. That is how political reality is created. Yes everyone know the Washington Post has printed errors and even had some bad commentators and reporters with series of bad stories eventually uncovered. Such things happen in political charged newspapers. Yet the important thing is that the reality the Post described is POLITICAL reality -- unless someone had the clout and time to force a timely retraction.

PS the most ridiculous aspect of Wikipedia is that if someone watched the tapes and could cite which the air date and time within that tape that the incident occurred -- it would be rejected as a source as being original research. I can almost see that for watching them all and not finding the incident. But then the idea scientifically proving the absence of something (not the same as proving a hypothesis must be false) is sort of a ridiculous standard.

For scientific (versus political) realities, I do believe that Wikipedia should allow the challenging of a single source citation. If a fact is reliably true you can almost always find an independent second source, that is one that doesn't refer back to the first source for its info. Even in physics, experimental results are considered tentative until another source repeats approximately the same results. Math is the one field were you might settle for a second qualified source looking at the original work and validating it by simply saying "I see no problem with their work" (total abstraction all in a single "paper" unburden by real world issues).

69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've eliminated the fact that she will be eligible to run for president in 2020 because I don't think it's relevant to anything. Is she planning on running for president? No. LaszloWalrus 02:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And also, the earliest she'd actually be eligiable would be 2016, when she's 36, so its not even supportive of the point the stat tries to make. -Fsotrain09 20:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite where Chelsea denies she will run for President. I think the status of this item is RUMOR -- regardless of public statements. Any one who had watched the approach of an election has seen people run who said they wouldn't and people who said they would decide not to do so. I don't think anyone will deny that Hillary Clinton if elected would like to see Chelsea succeed her similar to the Bush's. Now whether Chelsea wants to and mom has the capital to back her...well again it can be noted as a possibility and rumor but not denied nor affirmed until it is a done deal. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Globe cover photo

I understand that the photo of the Globe cover is used to illustrate that the Globe ran articles about Clinton in 1998, but I'm concerned that it has the effect of emphasizing the alcohol-abuse allegations themselves, since it's one of just four photos in the article. If those allegations didn't receive coverage by reliable sources, or are not important enough for the text of the article, then I don't think they should be mentioned via photo either. --Allen 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No response; removing. --Allen 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No one takes the tabloids seriously, and it is used here to show that the Globe has not shown the respect of other media outlets. I dont think anyone is going to say Clinton is a drunk from this photo. Thank you--David Foster 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tacky cover of Globe in the article. There's certainly no cover of National Enquirer shown at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, even though he was on the cover recently after allegedly having been been "caught" drinking. This type of visual negativity in the bio shows poor taste. 69.61.246.160 09:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't she have plastic surgery at some point?

I remember reading that Chelsea had plastic surgery after she had been in college for a while. There was an article with a "before" and "after" picture, and, while I understand they would use the worst and best pictures they have of her, it really did look like she'd had some work done. Has that ever been verified? ID208 00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumor. Not true. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Service?

Anyone know if she is still guarded by Secret Service? If so when does it stop, Truman's duaghter is still alive is she guarded? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.61 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

According to the Secret Service article she is not pertected by the Secret Service, only former first ladies and Presidents are guarded and starting with President Clinton this ends after ten years.

[edit] Current Job?

So what is her job at the hedge fund Avenue Capital Group? Presumably she's not a mathematical modeler, since her degrees are in history and international relations. Does she help bring in new investors? Eclecticos 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University Degree

Stanford does not award highest honors; instead, they give out "distinction," I believe to the top 10 or 15% of the class. HTH.

What degree did she get from Oxford? --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite upgrades

I upgraded the all of the citations. I removed one blog source, it was a third cite for a statement, so wasn't really needed anyway. The Franken thing could use a citation with page number there. The whole paragraph about Mark Lasry is original research as it is currently sourced. Were there any news reports on his contributions? Newsmeat is a good primary source, but there needs to be a secondary source for that too. The last sentence about Morgan Stanley also needs a secondary observer about it being a "coincidence". - Crockspot 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been a month, so I removed the whole Morgan Stanley paragraph. There were no sources cited except for one primary source. Find secondary sources making all of these observations before restoring. - Crockspot 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia deleted

Wikipedia is not a random list of trivia, especially unsourced and unverifiable material, such as Chelsea Clinton's appearance in an alleged, non-notable conservative comic book. For those reasons, I have removed a sentence from this article. I will remove it again once more if it is reverted. Bearian 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what

The neighborhood north of it, Hell's Kitchen, has been referred to as Clinton by real estate agents attempting to avoid the neighborhood's traditionally poor image.

What does this sentence mean? I've read it four times and still can't figure out what's being said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.251.95 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it means that instead of referring to the neighborhood as "Hell's Kitchen" (it's actual name) real estate agents now tell prospective clients that the area is called "Clinton". Personally, I'd prefer to live in historic "Hell's Kitchen" rather than a non-existent "Clinton".75.164.160.112 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)dwargo

Yes, the area is called Clinton - having nothing whatsoever to do with Chelsea or any other member of her family of course. It's just an historic name for the area abutting, yes, Chelsea, hence Chelsea-Clinton. Why are we talking about this here? Tvoz |talk 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

This seems to be a collection of jokes and comments made about her, because of who her parents are. Besides being mostly in bad taste the whole thing is kind of trivial. Does it tell us anything about Chelsea herself? Borock (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

as a WP:BLP, there's a good argument that these tasteless jokes should probably be left out. they can likely be found at linked-to WP articles, so there's no need for inclusion here. Anastrophe (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I went ahead and took out the whole section. It seems to me that people will visit this article to find out some info on her herself, not a list of jokes and insults. They can go someplace else for that. Borock (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] white spaces

There are a couple of big white spaces in the article. I didn't see anything in the edit screen that would help.Borock (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February/March 2008

Chelsea spoke to a Dallas audience today. Her introducer said she attended Stanford with an initial major in Chemistry before switching to History, as per this article; Chelsea responded that this was incorrect, and not to believe everything one reads. However, the announcer was fumbling a bit. Is this information on Chelsea's course of majors correct? 2/20/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.198.73 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

According to First Lady of the United States, Chelsea Clinton filled in for Hillary Clinton in this role at some point. It's not mentioned here in this article, though, and I know nothing about it. Should this article be in Category:U.S. First Ladies? Bryan 07:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe it should not. A period of 17 days does not warrant a listing in a category with some of the others. Seems to be more of a "misc trivia" than anything else Nick Catalano 08:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned on this discussion page, though, that "First Lady," is a style, not an office, title, rank, or station; the official title is "White House Hostess." The above referenced article cites many Presidential wives who have held the Hostess role, but also daughters and friends of Presidents. Also, doubtless, Chelsea attended functions in her own right, and thus served as a Hostess. I don't think the 17 day limitation is a big deal here....I would like to know more about her life post White House (i.e. how well did she do at University? Life at McKinsey?) Isotopephd 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton wrote a piece for Talk magazine about her experiences in New York City on Sept. 11. Here are some quotes:

"... I even resent the theory that America's arrogance, even indirectly, led to the attacks".

"I was expounding on the detriments of Bush's tax cut...."

"I stopped berating the tax cut and started praying that the president would rise to lead us. And I thanked God my mother was a senator representing New York ..."

Would it be appropriate to add here a mention of the extremely crass "White House Dog" joke Rush Limbaugh pulled on his TV show? I believe she was aged 13 at the time.

Short answer: no. --Nlu 05:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the Rush Limbaugh article, but those editors have sent it down the memory hole. You can read their discussions about it at Talk:Rush_Limbaugh/Archive1. Wasted Time R 13:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the "joke" was supposedly an error cannot be taken at face value. The show was aired several hours after it taped. Had it really been an error, he would have removed it from the airing of the show. --Asbl 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with such a "theory" is that without the picture of Chelsea, there's no joke. Rush says "White House dog", and he was supposed to show a picture of...what, exactly? --24.184.72.20 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defensive remark by Chelsea re:Monica Lewinsky scandal

I don't know if any of you caught this in the news, but Chelsea responded defensively to a question about the Monica Lewinsky scandal . A college student who is a reporter for his school's newspaper wanted an opinion on "on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president." Chelsea replied "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". Is this encyclopedic enough to be added to the article? Here are the numerous news articles that cover the incident. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

not particularly. maybe if it's still news in a month. otherwise, it's just currentism and conflating wikipedia with wikinews. Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

agreed that it is not worthy. If we follow her every move in an encyclopedia, we are more like a papparazipedia. Isaacsf (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this [info about Chelsea being a vegetarian] really necessary?

The opening of this article contains a statement that she no longer eats red meat. I think this statement should be removed or at least moved to a different section of the article. Any thoughts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but couldn't you have waited a bit for some consensus instead of deleting the remark wholesale? I think it would be a bit more neighborly to move it to an appropriate section. Isaacsf (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the material about Clinton becoming a vegetarian at age 11 in the opening of the article because the article arranges the events of Clinton's life in chronological order, and the only events prior to her "Teenager at the White House" stage are listed in the opening. I propose to create a section entitled "Early Years", to precede the "Teenager at the White House" section, and move the events of her early years into it. Wideangle (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry. I should have waited to hear from other people before removing it. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] skipped the third grade

is this really notable? Anastrophe (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's part of being a precocious child. I haven't known many people who have skipped a grade, so I consider it notable. Wideangle (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 11 Whereabouts?

Why is there no mention of the controversy over Chelsea's and Hilary's different versions of the story of Chelsea's September 11, 2001 experience? http://www.wnyc.org/blog/lehrer/archives/000064.html - Avitor 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two easy answers: because this is an article about Chelsea, not Hillary, and because that info is nearly 4 years old and not especially encyclopedic. The "controversy" - to there degree there even is any - goes with Hillary, not Chelsea. There are additional problems, but these are enough to keep it out of the article, IMHO. Isaacsf (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page protection

This vandalism is getting out of hand (poor Chelsea). I accordingly requested protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State of the Article

This article seems very poor to me. There are quite a few uncited facts which appear to be completely superfluous and irrelevant. I removed the one about Rush's comments, which is totally irrelevant.

Editors should remember that our facts need to be cited, and information needs to be relevant. This article looks more like a rumor mill in places rather than biography of a living person. Vir4030 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)