Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (214739)	1/25/2007 5:14:48 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think her orientation is only "embarrassing" if the family has a hostile attitude toward gays. Not imo. Why should someone's sex life necessarily be a matter of public concern? And if they are hostile to them, then it is an interesting story, don't you think? See, there is the implication that if the family doesn't want to discuss it in front of the world, they are "hostile". As I recall she was pretty active- injecting herself in to politics by becoming a part of the campaign. Working for her fathers re-election means her sex life is a matter of public concern. 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. Completely agree, but the only comments on her looks were 1) Limbaugh 2) a private joke by McCain apparently and ... apparently thats about it. No msm coverage on her looks. BTW a contemporary conservative view of Chelsea's looks: rightwingnews.com 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. So I think we agree they aren't really attacking Cheney's daughter. I think your new argument, that they are trying to embarrass the Cheneys, is closer to the truth- although I think it's more about exposing hypocrisy, but I grant you, the exposure of hypocrisy can lead to embarrassment. If (for example) a politician was against women's rights, and yet had daughters who were very pro women's rights, I think the press would also be interested. It's a good story. It's human interest. It's not about how she looks, or whether she got drunk out with her boyfriend, it's about a difference in politics in a family. It's newsworthy, I think, and especially news worthy when the child starts working for the campaign. Of course, your opinion rests on the assumption the Cheney's are "anti-gay" or something.