"From what I know of Chelsea she has a much more reserved personality, where Barbara and Jenna seem much more lively and outgoing. Just my 2 cents."

Not quite what I heard from friends who went to college with her. Let's just say she did party and drink. Also, I believe she had a bit of a fetish for guys on the swim team. It wasn't that she was more reserved. Her school was different and smaller. She would also go places privately, not with a large sorority.

Hi everyone! I guess I have two little mini-topics for this post:

1. I know we haven't heard much about Chelsea Clinton while at Stanford. I may be wrong, but I believe that I heard when she started school there that the school newspaper's editor or a writer was fired because he wrote or intended to write about Chelsea. Anyone else heard this? That could definitely account for the lack of press she received while there.

2. As far as the Bush twins...there are things I did as a 19 year-old that wouldn't bear close scrutiny and I am thankful that I didn't make my mistakes in front of a national audience! I would also hate for my mom and dad's parenting skills to be judged based solely on how I acted when I was a college freshman away from home for the first time!



------------------
@~Tracy~@

By the light of the lamp, by the light of the lamp, by the bright shiny light, by the light of the lamp...if you are a DeeZee, you're the best that you can be, by the bright shiny light of the lamp!

I don't know if most of you all were old enough to really remember, but when Clinton took office the first time, '92, he insisted that the media "lay off" Chelsea. That would include Stanford's campus paper. Throughout his presidency, the media did just that. Whenever Chelsea was seen was when they went on trips abroad, campaigning for Hilary, etc.

Whatever she did pre-college and away at school was pretty much "hush, hush".

I think one of the only big stories about Chelsea was her hair...a story not as big as this one about the Bush's....my how times change...

I disagree. The Bush grils were raised in the spotlight just like Chelsea, or more so. They are part of an American dynasty...the Bush family, so they've been semi-famous since they were born. And their own father has been governor since they were what? 10 or so? So, even though Chelsea's dad was also governor, she didn't have the family legacy. I think if anything, the Bush girls are part of a family that should know about being in the public eye more so than the Clinton's. even the girls's great-grandfather was a congressman!

At least we no longer have a sitting president who turned his face to the cameras for all of America and the world to see, and say that he did not have an improper relationship with a woman -- and then later admitted (to some degree) that he did. But that doesn't matter since he was a democrat - it was perfectly acceptable the same way it is that Jesse Jackson has had a child from an affiar even though he is a REVEREND and a PROCLAIMED Christian (hmmm...something about 10 commandments and adultery and lying all keep coming to mind...)

I think that it shows some degree of candor with Bush that he hasn't been running around hiring every political analyst he can find to cover up and put a spin on what his children are doing.

Yes - people make mistakes -- but they shouldn't be lying about them nor making their mistakes in the oval office and heaven knows where else on the tax payers dime. I don't pay for my own sex -- I sure don't want to pay for anyone elses! But there's a fine line between what's right, and what's left http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif

If the government can tell men at 18 years old to go pick up a gun and run off to die for their country, then they surely can allow people of the same age to have a drink.

And let me just stand at the front of the class with my hand raised for all the world to see -- and no I'm not going to lie like Slick Willy....

I, AXO Alum, did drink underage, and did also purchase alcohol underage -- from a Mexican restaurant among others -- and no one thought it was national news for me. Come on - let's all admit it -- raise your hand if you drank and/or purchased underage....

AXO Alum, the difference is the irony, IMO. Clinton never claimed that he was bringing morality and family values back to the white house (like Bush, Quayle and other repubs have made their platform). So, yeah, Clinton shouldn't have done certain things, but at least he never promised us he wouldn't do them. Bush was all about family values and the irony (although not law-breaking) on his part was that either he considers his daughter's 2 run-ins with the law and 3 other "incidents" to be what makes up "family values" or he is advocating something he has an unusually hard time (more than, like I've said before, anyone I have EVER known) performing himslef (i.e. his expectations of others are higher than his expectations of himself or personal abilities.

He still lied to everyone and really couldn't care less that he did it.

I am not one to mud sling or bring in family matters when campaigning -- I've got a couple in my family that could really hurt my brother's political career. I just think its a shame that the American people thought it was just fine and dandy for Slick Willy to carry on in the White House, with no problems, but yet the same people want to freak out when Bush's daughters are busted for drinking. I think there is a HUGE difference between what a president is doing WHILE he is still president, and what his kids or family members are doing.

Like I said - the media and the left wing doesn't give a hoot what a democrat is doing in the White House. But with a republican president, his family is always in the spotlight. By the way -- I am looking forward to getting my tax refund check...

About the Bush girls -- where is the Secret Service? They were the ones running around covering up for Slick Willy -- you'd think they'd be looking out for the Bush twins. And they are technically baby-sitters -- they are to protect the president and his family at all times, and I think that they could and should have stepped in. If you are willing to take a bullet for someone, wouldn't you be willing to stop them from creating a scandal which could ultimately cost you your job?

Yeah, the publicity surrounding Bill's scandal was almost nil, huh? http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/rolleyes.gif

It got way more publicity than this...which is proper. I haven't even seen this on the news for a few days (except maybe Entertainment tonight)...and during Clinton's scandal, it was all over everything for 8 straight months. again, totally as it should be...but I think you representing the news media as not covering the Clinton affair is laughable. Were you out of the country...or maybe not even on the planet that year?

About the Secret Service, yeah, you would THINK someone would say, "Hey, not such a good idea to be doing that..." but as we've heard others say, maybe that's not strictly part of their job description. Whatever, I just don't like my tax money (under Clinton or Bush) to be spent following teenagers in high speed car chases, bailing people out of jail or protecting someone who's been adulterous...

whoa - i was taught in modern history class that the reason was pretty much reactionary, as an unfounded attempt to make the public feel better about drunk driving (which, if anyone here is old enough to remember [i'm not], wasn't considered uncommon or criminal 40 years ago - once it was realized it was a problem, public opinion turned hard). It came up in class as a comparison to the illegalization of marijuana, which was based on lobbying action from tobacco producers who didn't want the competition and made it a scapegoat. Didn't the change to 21 occur roughly around the change to 55mph - also, this is why the age limit (set by states) is actually tied to the federal gov't (as the states will lose highway funding) - missouri was 18 until relatively recently, as an example.

Also, i was under the impression Canada (as an example) has a significantly lower occurance of drunk driving deaths and alcoholism - maybe my facts are wrong, can anyone help w/ this (and maybe extend it to europe)?

Anyway - thanks, good post

One in four young males in Europe dies an alcohol related death according to the World Health Organization (WHO). I have no idea whatsoever regarding Canada. And while tobacco did lobby against marijuana, I think that is a skewed statement. I think it would be more proper to say that they lobbied so nicotine wouldn't be considered a controlled substance by the FDA. They did definitely lobby against marijuana though. But alcohol companies have strong lobbying groups as well - don't forget. The reason why states would lose Federal highway funding is something more related to the rights of individual states and not an omnipotent federal government. Plus many roads do go above 55 (NJ highways come to mind)...ok back to work http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

Thanks - appreciate that.