To: Brumar89 who wrote (214716 ) 1/25/2007 2:29:06 PM From: epicure Read Replies (1) | Respond to I think her orientation is only "embarrassing" if the family has a hostile attitude toward gays. And if they are hostile to them, then it is an interesting story, don't you think? It's not as if they outed her. As I recall she was pretty active- injecting herself in to politics by becoming a part of the campaign. If Chelsea was or did something "hostile" to the Clinton's world view, I think the press would have covered it- even though she was quite a bit younger, and not even working for her father. The fact that her looks were commented on at all was just weird, because it has nothing to do with Clinton's views on private or personal matters. Is the press interested in someone who is gay and who comes from a family against gay rights, and who then begins to work to get someone elected who is against gay rights? Well yeah. I can't imagine this has anything to do with right/left. If a left wing pro-gay rights senator raised the next leader of some nationwide anti-gay group, I have to think the press would cover it, because the contrast is interesting, especially if his anti-gay child suddenly began working for his father's pro-gay rights campaign.
