It is possible to be honest, candid, factually correct, and still ethically offensive, and accomplish it all with just one word. The proof? Vice-President Cheney's reply of "So?' when reminded by a reporter that about two-thirds of the country now believe invading Iraq was a mistake.

At their core, virtually all policy-makers at all levels of government agree with Cheney, whether they can be made to admit it or not. The Founding Fathers agreed with Cheney too; this is why they chose to create a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. It is hard not to agree with him. Surveys show that only a quarter of Americans are fully literate. Majorities believe in ghosts, flying saucers, and that the universe is only 6,000 years old. A large percentage of the public thinks Barack Obama is a Muslim, and that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Many people who voted for George W. Bush in his first election thought that he was his father. More people know who George Clooney is than can name the Vice-President.

Most American can't find Iraq on the map, explain the difference between a Sunni and Shiite, or summarize in the most rudimentary terms the political dynamics of the Middle East. What most Americans do know is that the war has taken longer than they expected, has been extremely expensive, cost American lives, and they just wish it were over. That is not a sufficient basis to establish world history-altering policy-making expertise. Anyone who suggests that even overwhelming majorities in public polls necessarily carry anything but political weight is either deluded or dishonest. The majority of the public didn't want America to declare independence from the British. A majority felt that the Civil War was a mistake. A majority would probably vote to repeal large sections of the Bill of Rights. Nonetheless, Cheney's dismissive answer is ethically objectionable.

Why? Because the will and opinions of the public matter in a democracy, and deserve a measure of respect, no matter how uninformed or even wrong they may be. Elected officials owe the public loyalty and their best judgement, and the fact that their best judgement will sometimes be at odds with the public's gut instincts doesn't mean that public opinion can be regarded with contempt. Elected officials do not, and should not, have any obligation to be guided by opinion polls. They do have an obligation to listen, and if necessary, persuade and educate. "So?" is not education; "So?" is dismissal. The Vice-President must not forget who it is he works for. When your boss suggests something you think is unwise, you have some work to do. It is a fair bet that Dick Cheney does not take it well when subordinates respond to his opinions with, "So?"

Nor did Chelsea Clinton take it well when a questioner at a campaign rally asked about her mother's handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair. Chelsea, who was campaigning for Mom, answered tartly that this was none of the questioner's business. Though the reply got applause from the pro-Clinton crowd, Chelsea was dead wrong. Senator Clinton is running for president, and her feelings about the Lewinsky affair and her handling of it are absolutely relevant. What is her position on a President's obligation to tell the truth? Is there a higher standard of conduct, public and private, for national leaders? Did Hillary really believe her husband was innocent of the accusations when she told Matt Lauer that it was all part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," or was she playing her part in a cover-up, lying to the American people? All of this is our business, because Hillary wants to be president, and if it is uncomfortable for her to deal with such questions, it was her choice to be in a position where they would be asked.

It was wrong, however, to ask this question of her daughter. Yes, I know: Chelsea Clinton in an adult, is serving as a "surrogate" for her mother and is therefore "fair game." But we are human beings, and we know that there is no way that she can look at this traumatic situation between her father, her mother and their public roles as anything but a personal nightmare not of her making. The questioner should have applied the Golden Rule, and waited until he could ask Mrs. Clinton herself without embarrassing her daughter. Just because he had a legitimate question doesn't mean that this was a proper time and a place to ask it.

Comment on this article