The Guardian fan-girls over yet another Clinton – by Amanda S. Green

The Guardian fan-girls over yet another Clinton – by Amanda S. Green


I know. I know. I was supposed to have blogged yesterday. Life has been “interesting” in more ways than one of late and time got away from me. I sent Sarah and apology and a promise to have something for her today. Later, she sent me a link to an article with the comment, “If you want something to snark . . .” Well, it took reading only the first paragraph to know snark won out. I needed something to snark and, OMG, she gave it to me. Of course, it is easy – and almost a duty – to snark anything in The Guardian [Teh Grauniad – ed.] and doubly so when any member of the Clinton family is involved.

You see, according to The Guardian, US media refers to Chelsea Clinton as “royalty”. They do so because she grew up in the Arkansas governor’s mansion and left for university from the White House. She’s special because of that, you see. “It is a uniquely strange and unenviable version of celebrity that stole Clinton’s anonymity before she was old enough to spell it.” I guess they’ve never heard of Caroline Kennedy or John F. Kennedy, Jr. Both of whom were thrust into the spotlight because of their family name, the fact their father was president, his assassination and their mother’s own fame. Or how about How about Lynda Bird and Luci Baines Johnson, daughters of Lyndon B. Johnson, former U.S. representative, senator, vice-president and then president? They grew up in politics and had the spotlight on them all their lives thanks to their father. Or Amy Carter, Jimmeh’s daughter? Or any one of numerous other children of politicians – or Hollywood stars – who grew up in the spotlight because of who their parents were? Nothing about Chelsea Clinton’s childhood makes her “royalty” much less makes her childhood “unique”.

Perhaps the writer doesn’t know what “uniquely”, which comes from the word “unique”, means. According to the dictionary, “unique” means “existing as the only one or as the sole example”. Considering the examples I’ve already given, not to mention others I could give, I’m pretty sure she hasn’t a clue about the meaning, at least not in this context.

But let’s go one.

Perhaps “pretentious” would have been a better word to use when describing Chelsea. First, the day before the interview, the writer spoke with one of Chelsea’s “handlers” who left her wondering how far she’d be able to go off-script in the upcoming interview. Then, the next day, the interview was held at The Clinton Foundation, in a “discreetly unadvertised expanse of midtown Manhattan office space populated by serious-looking people and elegantly adorned by African-inspired artwork chosen by Clinton’s father.” Oh, and the interview itself didn’t take place in a simple office or coffee room. Oh no. A Clinton could never be that normal. It took place in the board room. Yes, there is a psychology to this, one the author apparently either didn’t recognize or chose to ignore. It was Chelsea making sure her own importance, and her control, wasn’t overlooked.

Three paragraphs in – and they are long paragraphs – we have yet to hear anything about Chelsea’s book, the reason for the interview. There have been two, maybe three, references to the fact she ahs a new book out. But dayam, this is a fan girl’s scree to a Clinton. She’s soooo wonderful. She started the interview precisely on time. She was soooo informed about British current events. She noticed the author’s medical sleeve and asked about it and about the origin of her first name, “Decca”. It’s as if she’d never conducted an interview before with someone who had grown up being groomed for public speaking and service. Trust me, Decca, Slick Willie trained his daughter well, much better than her mother did, when it comes to connecting to people.

Finally, in the fourth paragraph, we get to the book, “She Persisted Around the World”. Well, we sort of do. We finally get the title. We know it is a sequel to another book Clinton put out. But most of the paragraph deals with how the original book got its title from the confrontation between Mitch McConnell and Elizabeth Warren when McConnell used Senate rules to stop Warren from reading a letter from Martin Luther King, Jr. Of course, good ole Decca is full of condemnation for McConnell and his “scathing attack” on Warren and his use of an “obscure senate rule” to silence her. Nothing, of course, is said about why he used the rule and little is said about how she had been warned, more than once, that she was in violation of Senate rules. That wouldn’t fit the narrative of an evil white male silencing a woman and we much stay true to the narrative, no matter what the cost to truth.

You see, Clinton wants to show girls they can be whatever they want to be. Okay, that’s cool. But let’s look deeper. Using research from the Geena Davis Institute – Yes, it is THAT Geena Davis and the full name is the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in the Media. Sorry, am I the only one to laugh hysterically about this? – to prove her point that the vast majority of cartoons have male protagonists, Clinton wants to see this change. She wants little girls – and, of course, little boys – to know girls can be more than sisters or mothers, friends or partners. She quotes Sally Ride, “You can’t be what you can’t see.”

Ride’s quote, while accurate, was taken out of context. It came from an interview she did and was in response to being asked about being a role model and the transition from astronaut to public face of her company. Ride basically said she didn’t become a physicist or an astronaut to be a role model. However, after her first flight, she realized she had become a role model. That’s when she said, “Young girls need to see role models in whatever careers they may choose, just so they can picture themselves doing those jobs someday. You can’t be what you can’t see.”

On the surface, Clinton appears to be supporting what Ride said. But then, when you look at it closer, you can see where she is using the quote to advance her own agenda. You see, she wants girls to be “more” than best friends or partners, more than sisters or mothers. No where in her interview does she seem to say it is okay if that is all the girl wants. Ride, on the other hand, makes it clear that girls need role models in “whatever careers they may choose” and, yes, motherhood, etc., can and is a career. But, again, that doesn’t fit the narrative.

Clinton says, “It’s so often the case that our stories are centred around men, told by men, the heroes are men – and so I think it’s hugely important that we make women more visible in the stories in our history that have always existed, but also to imagine and create more female-centred stories moving forward.”

Wow. Just wow. I feel sorry for her. To grow up in a home with a supposed feminist mother and not having known those stories already exist. I’m older than Chelsea. I grew up in a home with books about Marie Curie and other women in history. I can walk into my study and find books about Abigail Adams, Mary Todd Lincoln, Marie Curie and so many others. Books that my parents had. I can find novels with female leads, strong female leads. I didn’t need to see women in roles I wanted to be in. Why? Because my parents told me that, as long as I did my best, I could try for anything. I might not always get it – they were realists after all and not trying to raise a precious little snowflake – but I could try. Apparently, Chelsea either didn’t have this or she doesn’t believe there are parents out there who don’t rely on the media to raise their kids.

Yep, this comes back to the media. Remember, she is using the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in the Media to justify her work. I guess you have to reach for something when your dad was philandering in the Oval Office when you were a kid and your mother refuses to admit she lost the fucking presidency not once but twice.

She has talked in the past about inheriting her maternal grandmother’s “responsibility gene”, and mentions to me that her daughter’s nursery has been encouraging conversations about the concept of fairness. “It gives us the chance to talk with her about what is fair, and that she already has unfair advantages because of who her parents are. I don’t think she really understands the concept of privilege yet, but I want her to be able to understand that as soon as she’s old enough to.

Oh. My. Ghu. She has to have her daughter’s nursery “encouraging conversations about the concept of fairness”. If she is so “woke”, why is this even necessary? She should have already been having this discussion. Oh, and let’s not forget this is with her three-year-old daughter. Mmmm, yeah, I also “don’t think she really understands the concept”. She’s three! Maybe instead to talking to her about privilege, Chelsea should be talking to her about what is right and wrong, what is nice and what’s not. But nooo, this is so much more “woke” and sounds so much better to the other “woke” folks.

There is so much more but all it shows is what we already knew. The Guardian, if it ever knew what journalistic integrity is, has long forgotten its meaning. Pretty much like how the author of this article has forgotten the meanings of the words like “unique” and “lifelong impossibility of being” Chelsea Clinton. OMFG. You can almost hear the squees, in full fan-girl mode, of Decca as she writes about Clinton. For an article that is supposed to be about Clinton’s book, well, it isn’t. It is about how wonderful Clinton is, how strong she is for having survived being Clinton, etc. There isn’t enough snark – or enough booze – to keep reading.

What it all boils down to is this – Clinton isn’t Trump. Evil Trump. Bad Trump. She doesn’t do her father’s dirty work like Ivanka does. She even manages to get in a passive-aggressive slap at Barbara Bush in the interview. Yes, the interview that was supposed to be about her book but which surprisingly – or not – turned into a political interview. Remember when Decca lamented that she worried about how far afield Chelsea would go from the stated purpose of the interview? I think it is clear this was never going to be an interview about her book. This was a very carefully planned attack on the current administration and a set up for either her mother’s next run for office or her own political future.

Poor little Chelsea, sitting high in her mommy’s and daddy’s foundation, looking at her name on the door and knowing she has to do something to live up to their “legacy”, no matter what that legacy might be. I hate to tell her this but her family never has been and never will be the Kennedys, no matter how hard they try.

One thing does come clear as you read the article, however. Chelsea learned how to manipulate and communicate from her father. She is much smoother than her mother ever will be. This is something to keep in mind. Slick Willie has a daughter who can be as slick as he. Will she be satisfied with her “work” for the foundation and her writing or will she soon stick her toe into the political waters? Only time will tell but I know where my money is.

And no, I am not going to read her book. I’ve already read one Clinton’s book and my liver is still recovering. I think I would almost rather read Michelle O’s book than this.

Sarah, you own me a drink or three for having waded through this trash. I should have known better. Grumble. Grumble.


177 thoughts on “The Guardian fan-girls over yet another Clinton – by Amanda S. Green

    1. Yup. I read this too fast. Now I need to drink too fast to compensate.

  1. *Sigh* The US needs another political dynasty like it needs the New Madrid Fault to twitch. We got two Adams, two Bushes, two Roosevelts (OK, cousins, but similar philosophies in some ways). We don’t need another Clinton unless it is an unrelated person who has the unhappy fate of sharing the last name.

    If people want another YGTBSM from Teh Grauniad, try this one:

            1. I forget who,it was who did the joke, “They shot JFK, they shot RFK, they looked at Teddy and said ‘Why bither, he’ll do it to himself’.”

    1. Hell, the Dem bastidges are trying to inflict the Graham family on Florida by running his daughter for Governor or something.

    2. At least both Adams were competent and good men, and the Roosevelts were decent at the job. You can tell they are trying to groom her for a political future, and frankly it is nauseating.

      1. Teddy Roosevelt was ok. In his day Progressivism hadn’t gone as rotten as it did under Wilson. FDR was a sonofabitch racist elitist bastard.

        1. FDR and lackeys gave the Soviets the atomic bomb and the infrastructure to carry on the Cold War.

          1. I wouldn’t go thay far. FDR was a fool, not a Stalinist. He allowed, mostly through arrogance, the infiltration of the government by some ardent Communists, which Truman had a lot of trouble getting out again. He though he was manipulatin Stalin when Stalin was manipulating him.

            1. Yes.

              FDR had a blind spot in regards to Stalin.

              Joseph Davies, FDR’s choice of ambassador to the Soviet Union was either duped or in the bag. He happily reported back describing Stalin in glowing complementary terms, even asserting that, ‘It is generally admitted that no graft exists in high places in Moscow.’

              We now know, with the opening of Russian records, that there were not only soviet sympathizers, but also soviet agents in FDR’s administration. Throughout the press and the intellectuals of the nation many served as apologists for the Soviet experiment.

              FDR foolishly believe that 1) that Stalin was honest and played ‘fair’ and 2) that he could manage Stalin. He had told Churchill, ‘I think that I can personally handle Stalin better that either your Foreign Office or my State Department.’

              Truman came into office surrounded by FDR advisers and initially they did have some influence upon his policies regarding the Soviet. He was a more plain man than FDR. When the truth of the matter became apparent to him, rather than find excuses for it, he chose to believe it and acted accordingly.

            2. FDR was a fellow intellectual traveler with Hitler and Stalin. We were spared the full horrors of the holocaust and the gulag more due to the robustness of American institutions and the grace of God than any other factors.

    3. And, of course, we have had two Harrison Presidents, Grandfather and Grandson, I believe.

    4. You forgot two other pairs of related Presidents.  Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison.  James Madison and Zachary Taylor were second cousins. 

      One of the things that was seen in George Washington’s favor was the lack of children.  (This was probably the result of the small pox he contracted when he was in the Barbados in 1751.)  People liked the idea that there would not be a dynasty.

  2. One thing I’ve heard about the Clinton is that for all Bill’s faults, he loves Chelsea in a way that Queen Hillary doesn’t.

    So it doesn’t surprise me that Chelsea has her father’s skills at managing people.

    Hillary likely lectured Chelsea but Bill taught Chelsea.

  3. Can we stop with political dynasties already? I didn’t like Jeb! and I didn’t want another Clinton; I want a better choice. (Of course, I haven’t been happy with the selections of the last several major elections. Is this really the best we can do?)

    1. Perhaps we need the services of a dart-equipped monkey and a series of ever more details maps. Or maybe just some watery tart with a sword to offer would suffice. I am NOT volunteering to be President, Vice President, Fearless Leader, nor monkey, nor tart (watery or otherwise).

      I have my standards. They might be low, but I still have them.

      1. Yes, the problem with the monkey and the darts is that it might just hit my address. Shudder…

        Nobody here wants me as President, anyway. Mainly because you WILL be drafted (or recalled) for national service.

        1. If, in a shocking development, I were elected Imperator:

          Given the general increase of fitness and apparent slowing of aging (Due to nutrition maybe? Definitely a thing, though – look at photos of 50yr olds back 100 years ago vs. today and compare and contrast), if there’s ever a general call up again I’d be loudly agitating for the top callup age to be changed to way the hell up there. I see no reason why any young able bodied ‘murcan should ever be emplaced as box-moving-supply-dude-or-dudette in Lower Eastwestistan Supply transshipment Base far, far away from the loud noises – they should drop the aging butts of people my age into those supply-chain spots to free the younger’uns to go be all shooty.

          And this callup would be fully gender-blind – not the jobs, but the call up. You still gotta pass the course to get the job, but in a global conflict there would be lots of jobs.

          This would also increase the societal cost of going generally shooty to the point that it would only happen if the real existential-threat need is there, not for whims of regime change or passing fancies of democracy building in ancient and hostile lands.

          If you gotta go, send everyone who is able bodied and get it over faster.

          This has been your Imperator Pax Americana, and I approve this message.

          1. Yup. I’m medically limited to lifting thirty pounds or less. But I still know how to run a fork lift – or count stuff without taking my boots off.

            You need fobbits, too (just make sure they aren’t given too much power).

          2. And, I’m obviously cranky today. If you don’t qualify (or can’t be trusted) to do a necessary job, there are always the “special” battalions.

            1. Are you thinking “Comfort Battalions” like the IJA or something more Soviet in implementation?

    2. Given how they get treated, ya. Unless you have proper ideology every stone is overturned and sff mears thrown. Now with violence. Only the power hungry or born into it people will.

    3. I am so pissed off about American political dynasties at this point that it does not matter of Dear Little Princess Chels is politically adept, intellectually gifted and personally charming … just no. No. NO!
      And throne-sniffers like Decca of the Guardian can just stop it.

  4. Chelsea may have better social skills than Hillary, but she is not going to be a high political achiever. She’s, what, mid to late thirties, early forties? What has she done politically? What offices has she won? At best, she has refrained from running because her mother’s ambition didn’t need the attention drawn. At worst, she either doesn’t have the gorm or doesn’t have the desire. That’s simply not President or Governor grade, and probably isn’t Senator grade.

    This is probably about Hillary, and is likely evidence that she is a sick, sick woman.

    1. Hillary “living through” Chelsea.

      Yep, I can believe that.

      Of course, Chelsea might not actually believe this shit but wants to keep “Mommy Dearest” happy.

      It would be “interesting” to see what happens after “Mommy Dearest” dies.

    2. You’ll notice that nothing was said about Chelsea running for office prior to Hillary’s loss this year. I think it’s simply a case of the Clinton groupees want some substitute for him back, and it’s clear that that substitute is not going to be Hillary. It reminds me a bit of when JFK Jr. died and there were all these laments from people that we were never going to see him become president. I thought, “Really? What in this man’s life suggested to you he was interested in politics or likely to run for President?”

      As for Chelsea having more social skills than Hillary, that isn’t exactly a high bar. I also wonder how much it’s due to the fact that the fangirl here clearly wanted to be charmed. I’ve always found Chelsea pretty off-putting, but then again, I thought the same thing of Obama. I wonder how the average Jane or Joe would react to her.

      1. It could be that in some ways, Chelsea is trying to be the anti-Hillery. “If Mom does this, then I’ll do that,” at least when it comes to managing people. Which she probably picked up from her father. He’s a letch and a cad, but he can charm and he can learn.I get the feeling that Hillary is more doctrine, Bill is more “how to get and keep power.”

        1. Hey, if she becomes a constitutional conservative and pro-life activist I’ll vote for her.

    3. Bob, your points are good, but what had Obama actually done before he was elected President? Basically less than nothing, certainly nothing worth-while. And yet (even knowing his involvement with some VERY bad people) he got elected anyway. Makes me really wonder about a good percentage of our voters….

      1. It made ME wonder just how many illegal votes were,cast. In fact, I wonder the same thing about 2016. The Progressive Left keeps saying Shrillary won the popular vote. And while the coreect answer to that is “So what?”, I find myself wondering “Did she? Did she really?”

        1. The real correct answer is “Lincoln only got 40% of the vote, are you saying it was right for the South to secede?’. 🙂

      2. Former President Obama did have a pretty face, skill at reading teleprompters, and the fact that he was not Hillary!.

        1. It gripes me that people talk about how ‘beligerant’ Trump is, when Obama got us involved in every Third World piss-up going, apparently without much real idea what the f*ck he was doing.

          1. Democrats/Leftists (but I repeat myself) are very good at projecting their own conduct, or rather misconduct, and desires, or rather lust for absolute totalitarian power, onto others.

            1. Also, I really think Trump is trying to introduce the world to the idea that negotiating with the US is nit going to be a matter of them demanding and us giving. I don’t think he wants tarrifs, I think he wants tarrif parity, preferably low. I don’t think he wants war with North Korea or Mexico, I think he wants them to believe that he isn’t so attached to the ‘diplomatic process’ that war is off the table.

              And the Left would criticise him if unemplyment was at 0%, the economy was booming, and he was raising the dead by laying on of hands.

              1. Of course they would.

                People should be able to take their time and look for a job they really want, and we’d be using more than our share and contributing to overpopulation.


              2. Raising the dead? The Democrats would lose valuable voters if that happened!

      3. He was in the Senate, and in pretty good with the Illinois combine.

        He is also a very able deceiver. Okay, if you can disconnect the claims from how he presents, have a fundamentally broken sense of body language, or are skilled at detecting detection, not so much. His actual claims tend to be obvious bullshit when contrasted with verifiable facts. But he has a strong ability to evoke the desire to believe in people who start out at least neutral. Doesn’t work so much on people who have figured out that he is an evil, lying, son of a bitch, but he has that skill and it shows how deeply driven he was to develop it.

        My sense now is that Hillary has gone deeply nuts, Chelsea is in close enough contact that she is getting some spillover, and she is either humoring her mother, or caught up in her mother’s thinking.

        Chelsea probably doesn’t have the healthiest personality, but the word choice is so strongly flavored by her mother’s people, that this is most certainly them, and the drive for this will not survive Hillary. Hillary and Bill are in their seventies, and presidential runs are possible in 2020, 2024, 2028, etc… Hillary may be able to wrangle the 2020 nomination for herself, but if Trump is still an issue for Democratic voters, they will not want to risk losing with Chelsea. The Democrats won’t be desperate about Trump in 2024, etc, but it becomes increasingly likely that Bill and or Hillary are dead by then. Chelsea isn’t capable of creating the Clinton organization herself, and the top cronies will be older, possibly disordered by the death of Bill or Hillary, and remotely possibly in jail.
        The Democrats will be wanting a candidate that can sell them on all sorts of nutjobbery, and it is not clear that the Clinton organization will be up to persuading them that Chelsea is that candidate.

        Regardless of how much Bill taught her, Chelsea is apparently not a sexual predator, and that limits her ability to learn how to do what he does.

        1. It’s Bill, and only Bill who really has good will with the American public or the Democratic party. Hillary burned through a whole lot of it in 2008, and again in 2016. There’s not enough left for any Clinton to get a nomination.

        2. I think the people around Obama are pretty good deceivers. He gives a great teleprompter speech. Sounds illiterate attempting to opine on anything serious extemporaneously. Or anything, really. OTOH, Trump often throws away his canned speech. May not be exact on facts, but can hold the crowd pretty well.

        3. “But he has a strong ability to evoke the desire to believe in people who start out at least neutral. ”
          You describe Obama’s rhetorical effect very well. When I first started listening to him in 2007, he was indeed quite appealing. Even after I knew him to be the deceiver and liar that he was truly was, listening to him without keeping a constant running fisk going could seduce me back into thinking how very reasonable he sounded.
          But I knew from very early on that he was a jerk — and my opinion of his character went downhill from there.

          1. See, I never thought that he sounded appealing, but I am a bit odd (shocking here, no?), and early on realized if you sped up video of one of his speeches he came across looking just like Benito Mussolini. Mark Davis stated in coverage of the convention that he spoke a soring style that 5 minutes after he stopped you had no idea what it was he said. Typical leftoid, 0bama was all about the emotion and never mind the facts. In fact, it was best for him if you never learned what the facts were.

          2. Not really my insight. Someone of an interesting background described Obama to me as ‘he makes you want to believe’. The person telling me that would have known a little something about liars.

            I’m a little strange socially. So like JP, some of it simply didn’t work on me. I listened to one of his televised campaign speeches while messing around with the computer, and then listed three claims I would prefer he were lying about. He was telling the truth about his Iran policy, and about his energy policy. I’m not sure what the third was. I definitely forgot at some point. I was recently reminded that I had anticipated a lot of his fomenting of white supremacism. However, what he did was qualitatively worse than I had anticipated, and it doesn’t feel like that was my objection to that speech.

            1. Early on, well before nomination, the Chemist at work and I were explaining to the lab workers why we disliked 0bama and what was wrong with what he said, we looked at each other and he asked, “You thinking what I’m thinking?” I said “Carter?” and he said “yep”.
              Later we both wished for Carter, as Carter II became a best case scenario.
              I had very low expectations and he managed to live well below them.

              1. Problem with Carter as an example is, that a good portion of the voters enthralled, were either not born yet, or too young to pay attention to politics. FYI. That was my first thought too. OMG, Obama was so much worse. With Carter we only had to put up with 4 long years.

                1. both lab workers were in their 20’s at the time, and one yet to be a citizen, (She grew up in Texas though) and only knew Carter as that guy who was President back before they were born.

    4. Um, by recent history, what do you need to be a major political figure, or even POTUS? (Note, this is not the case with Chelsea – but sometimes it is a good thing that a new face doesn’t “make the grade.”)

      1. This is less ‘what someone should have to be elected to office’, and more profiling Chelsea, and estimating from there her chances of being elected to office.

        People don’t make life choices at random, occupations are not awarded at random.

        So you can somewhat predict future choices from past ones. And, you know that some patterns of past choices are more probable for extreme success in certain occupations than others. I’ve never much liked sports, and am in poor physical condition. So we can be pretty sure I’m not going to end up a NFL star next year. Okay, President is more tolerant of abnormalities and other things than becoming a senior military official. But if you don’t really want it, and are wishy-washy, you will lose out in the political in fighting to people who want it more.

        I can convince myself that maybe Chelsea can win a Governor’s seat. But I simply do not see a Presidency for her without first being a Governor or Senator. Freak circumstances or inherited cronies are not going to take her from those to the White House, barring her deciding she cares enough to become effective on the job.

        1. Occupations are not awarded randomly? Don’t know about that. NBC apparently won the bidding war to hire someone at $600,000 per annum with absolutely no experience to be a special correspondent. I have to wonder what other companies were bidding to hire Chelsea in 2011.

          1. That wasn’t random, that was a deliberate move on the part of NBC, thinking they could bank on the Clinton name and connections. It didn’t work out very well for them.

          2. Next thing I know, you’ll tell me that those leftist memoirs are merely attempts to disguise bribes as advances.

    5. At worst, she either doesn’t have the gorm or doesn’t have the desire.

      What is wrong with not having the desire to run for President? 

      Looking at many of the comments regarding the general distaste for families that promote political dynasties I would think it would be viewed a desirable if there were more who didn’t have the desire. (And had the gorm to resist any pressure to do so.)

  5. Have heard she can be a sweet, likeable kid, this was just before and just after daddy’s terms. The last also said mommy was trying to turn her into a duplicate, but the kid favored daddy. I bet mommy wants her to run for President, on mommy’s platform, but she ain’t gonna win that way, and even if she is more like daddy than the stain that is her mom . . . of course he is a different sort of stain, she ain’t likely to win though she is likely to take daddy’s advice.
    Chelsea needs too worry about keeping where all the money has gone from coming to light. Her name is on much of the probable illegal activities.

    1. One of the stories that I heard about Chelsea was that when she was starting her new school after her father moved into the White House, she told her teachers that if there were any problems that they should call her father as her mother would be “too busy”. 😦

        1. Bill let her do all the stuff that really cheesed off the majority.
          Meanwhile he stuck his moistened finger in the air (when it wasn’t, ahem, elsewhere) and followed the way the wind was blowing.

      1. … she told her teachers that if there were any problems that they should call her father as her mother would be “too busy”. 

        Which one of those two would you want to be picking you up if you got in trouble at school?  

        The Daughter was hit on the back of her head during a class change, hard enough that there was concern that she might have received a concussion.  When the vice principal called she started with an apology for interrupting my day!  What does that imply about how ‘normal’ parent’s reactions to being called?

        Can you imagine what that would have been if you had to call either of Chelsea’s parents?  We might have to give her some credit for both situational and people smarts.

  6. I admit that I’m a bit tired of this whole, “Oh, poor Chelsea, stuck in the spotlight her whole life” schtick. That may have been true when she was a kid, but it isn’t now. When was the last time you heard about the Bush twins? Or Julie Nixon Eisenhower, daughter of one president and granddaughter-in-law of another? It’s not that you can’t find out about what these people are doing if you look for the information, but they hardly have tabloid reporters following them around everywhere. They generally just live their lives. If Chelsea is still in the spotlight now, almost twenty years after her father left office, it’s because she chooses to be.

    I’ll also say that she has always struck me as one of the least mature people I’ve seen. The crack about George W. was that he was born on third base and thought he’d hit a triple, but at least he knew he was on third base. Chelsea has always given me the impression she was born on third base and thinks she’s still in the on-deck circle. She’s had multiple jobs that for anyone else would be the pinnacle of their careers, and she treats them like summer internships. She “can’t bring [herself] to care about money,” apparently not recognizing that the reason she doesn’t need to care is because she’s the daughter of millionaires who’s married to another millionaire.

    I don’t see her becoming the next Slick Willy. Perhaps she has Billy Boy’s charm, but I don’t think she has his hunger and ambition.

    1. She thinks she’s a Star. Daddy was a Star. Mommy thinks she’s Joan Freaking Crawford. The idiot Mediaocracy treats her like she’s a Star.

      Does the poor kid actually have any skills? How would we know?

    2. Eh, being born in a first-world country so that you will live in the 21st century is being born on third base. The differences between us are trivial compared to many in history.

  7. My brother actually liked Trump and one of the things that he pointed out as important to him was that Trump’s children *work* and grew up expected to do the “labor” parts of jobs as well. It’s true, certainly, that you get a good head start if your folks are wealthy. But success still demands a work ethic and you can still fail.

    I don’t know what Chelsea has done. Seems like this and that and gives speeches and gets paid by student dues paid to colleges and heads a Foundation, which it doesn’t really matter if you’re good at it because you really can’t fail at giving away money and no one so much as asks if programs are efficient or effective.

    She may be personally a nice person. Certainly the talk is that she was considered a sweet kid (as opposed to a brat or spoiled) when she was at the white house.

    Oh, and another data point on her mother’s behavior… my Dad just told me that one of my classmates had also enlisted way back when and spent time working in the Clinton White House. Said that Hillary would smile for the cameras and when they were off was absolutely horrible to everyone who worked for her.

    1. There’s a Lefty I sort of know, friend of some relatives, used to run into maybe once every year until she got married, who has described having to deal with Hillary Clinton. First she gushes about how much she admires Hillary, how and Hillary’s policies, and what a wonderful role model Hillary is of a strong woman. Then she spends two-three times as long describing how horrible it was having anything to do with Hillary, in a personal or professional context. There was not one nice word in there about Hillary as a human being.

      1. A relative of mine was a high union official in New York City. He had nothing good to say about either Hillary or Former President Obama.

        1. Yeah, it’s telling that even guys on detail who didn’t really like Bill or even Hillary would do the job, but under 0bama, it seemed everyday the Service just went through the motions in the worst possible way. Sorry, even if the Pres/FL/VP etc is a worthless sack of excrement, I want the Treasury boys and girls to do the damned job right. So far, haven’t heard any such occurrences under Trump, and you know the media would be hammering away if there were any.

          1. I’ve heard stories that the Secret Service agents in the Clinton White House kept an unofficial log of times when they couldn’t locate POTUS or FLOTUS within the White House. I believe it.

          2. I think that was more the detail heads being politically correct choices than complete rot.

            Hey, eight years (plus the time he was the nominee and entitled to protection), and no wack job got through to him. You know they were out there, too. (My greatest fear throughout his term was that someone would put one in him – the perfect excuse for the Left to tighten the last screws. Which would have made me suspicious, to be honest, of just what flavor of wack job did the deed.)

          3. That’s because the media hopes an assassin will get through, and depending on how many more like this one are in the ranks but more discrete, they want to leave them in place.


            “As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,” O’Grady wrote. “So I keep quiet and skirt the median. To do otherwise can be a criminal offense for those in my position. Despite the fact that I am expected to take a bullet for both sides. But this world has changed and I have changed. And I would take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her.”

      2. I lived in the DC area under Clinton, amd the word was that if some nut tried to shoot Hillary the odds were pretty good the Secret Service people would dodge out of the way and point to her, they despised her that much.

        1. there were about 6 guys, not Service, but military (2 were Air Force, i knew one of them) who didn’t completely despise her and she seemed less bitchy towards, and they got a bit over worked covering her, but she was still more popular than AlGore. Guys who didn’t care for her would volunteer to go somewhere they liked or wished to see as part of her detail (especially if Chelsie was along), but almost everyone on AlGore detail was assigned every time.

    2. I’ve heard much the same thing…and worse. Let’s just say that if the RUMINT is true, Bill Clinton had reason to keep a mistress.

    3. One reason for Trusts and Wills with spendthrift clauses is precisely because younger generations can be very good at pissing away inherited wealth.

      The thing that is so funny but oh so typical of the Democrats is that Trump for the vast bulk of his life was a classic New York limousine liberal who just happened to have the NYC developer’s blunt way of speaking. The difference is that because of the real estate background he always had a practical and deal making edge to him. Not exactly the makings of a raving ideologue. But of course for the Democrats, every Republican candidate going back to Barry Goldwater has been the “next Hitler”.

      A lot of people voted for Trump simply because of how loathsome Hillary is and how demonstrably crooked she is.

      My feeling is that anyone who has desired to be POTUS (or any top government position) for their entire life is too power hungry to ever actually be trusted in the job and should never be voted for.

  8. I think we need an amendment which prohibits the children, spouse, non-married significant other, mistress (and the male equivalent there of) parent, or first cousin (at least) of a President from holding public office.

      1. Unconstitutional doesn’t really apply when it comes to new amendments, so long as they follow the procedure. If an amendment requiring the exile of left-handed vegetarians, for example, was properly submitted and ratified, it would be perfectly constitutional.

      2. If it’s an amendment to the Constitution; it’s by default Constitutional.

        1. I overlooked that part. Mea culpa.

          I do think it would be a bad idea to weaken the prohibition against corruption of blood. But if we as a culture are making it necessary, the design has only really be validated for a culture inside certain bounds.

          1. Oh, I agree – I remind myself that the Lees and the Udalls are rather closely related by blood. Obviously not by politics, though.

            If only we had a simple psychological evaluation that would identify those who think they are nobility, and disqualify them from any government position. Of course, that would be more like nuking the swamp – DC and just about every State Capitol would be instant ghost towns.

          2. Unless you’re thinking being elected President is a criminal act, I believe you’re being over broad in the application of corruption of blood.

            1. If relatives of lawyers can’t be banned from serving on a board regulating lawyers, I think I am not.

  9. It is my sincere hope fr Chelsea that she come to realize the depths of corruption represented by her parents and renounce it. Then se could dedicate the talents she inherited from them to a honest career sorted to them.



    Really, the child had NO chance.

  10. Teh Grauniad is useful primarily for cheaply scoping out what new horse manure the Left is tying to pass off this week. Just skimming the headlines should be more than enough, an in-depth read of any article is sure to leave the reader less informed and possibly short a few synapses.

    Other than opposition research it is to be avoided at all costs. I’m sure it would poison any fish one wrapped in it.

  11. You see, according to The Guardian, US media refers to Chelsea Clinton as “royalty”.

    I have not encountered such statements in our press, but I haven’t read most of what there is passing themselves off as such, so who am I to challenge the lauded boffins at The Guardian?  So, yup, sure, Chelsea is “royalty”. 

    And the only Queen that England ever had was Queen Charlotte.  I read that just yesterday, so it must be so.  Really.  

    It seems that the state of education is no better in England than it is here.  Here we don’t know history.  There they don’t know how to comprehend the language we share. And a vast number on each side of the ocean are wearing blinders.

  12. The whole hue and cry about the lack of female characters is a confusing one for me. Some of my favorite characters to read are female characters.

    I’m a 47 year old man. Am I supposed to only like to read about middle aged fat dudes? Not a lot of middle aged fat dudes as the hero either, but do you hear me crying about it? What a joke!

    Far better are well written, interesting characters. If a character’s only trait is that they are a “STRONG FEMALE” they aren’t. They are a stupid piece of cardboard sucking the life out of your story.

    If you are a feminist author… PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take my advice. If you want to write a strong female character who is an awesome leader, F#@&ing LEARN A BIT ABOUT LEADERSHIP! Just being an a-hole isn’t leadership. (Sorry everyone, total pet peeve of mine).

    1. Secondly, Feminist, please don’t use feminism as a shield to prog shame people into seeing terrible movies or read terrible books.
      You are not fooling anybody. The fact that your movie sucked is obvious. It’s not the fault of sexism or racism or Trump, but yours and yours alone.

    2. I demand visitation rights for that pet peeve, Stuart.

      Of course, in fiction it’s just annoying. In real life it’s infuriating.

      Seriously, ladies, there IS a difference between “leadership” and “bossy”.

      Learn it.

      1. Lord, yes. Remember that whole, “Ban bossy” thing, with the whole, “You shouldn’t call girls bossy, you should call them good leaders.”

        If you don’t know the difference between being bossy and being a good leader, you’re probably bossy. Not to mention another word that starts with “b.”

      1. “Running” their “foundation” (should more properly be named the Clinton Family Slush Fund and Bribe Repository) is doing a lot to earn her that.

    1. The aardvark points out the second freezer is well stocked. There is enough for all.

  13. Chelsea has about the same charisma and public appeal as a 4th generation Kennedy. They might be able to get her into a congressional seat from one of the safely gerrymandered loon districts ala Wasserman-Shultz or Maxine Waters… heck, with a whole lot of money and effort, they may possibly even just scrape by into a deep blue Senate seat. But she ain’t getting to be president.
    Heck, there’s going to be a whole lot of knives out for the Clinton faction following this year’s primary. Especially if the “Blue Wave” turns into a receding tide.

    1. We have a long way to go to the middterms (trend-wise), but if I liked popcorn I would be stocking up already. It’s looked to me from the start like the ‘Blue Wave’ was a lot of wishful thinking, and if it’s a ‘Red Tide’ instead, the reaction figures to be EPIC.

      1. One of my biggest worries was that Trump would end up sinking the GOP in the midterms.
        How was I supposed to know that the Democrats would react like spoiled children denied a toy instead of acting like adults?

        1. Still a long way to the midterms, but at this time I’m expecting a a wash in the House and the Republicans picking up a few seats in the Senate.

            1. It could be that the Democratic party insiders are pulling a Goldwater maneuver:
              1) Let the radicals have space to act crazy and radical and select radical candidates
              2) Watch them lose the election and discredit themselves
              3) Offer yourselves as representing the now cast aside ‘traditional” Democratic groups and values, as the “moderate” voice that can bring the country together.
              Nixon did this in 1966, and Bill Clinton back in 1992.
              In fact, I suspect that it’s the Bill Clinton faction trying to seize control from both Hillary’s people & the Bernie bots.

              1. Possible. Or it could be that age has caught up with all the party leadership on both sides, and we are looking at a breaking wave. The R side is breaking more towards small-government and the D side is breaking overtly socialist, with both sides snarling about the hypocrisy of the older generations.

                And it could be I need more caffeine, because I’ve been looking at book cover art for an hour already this AM.

  14. I went into the 2016 election cycle with one thought: “No more Bushes, no more Clintons.” In that, at least, there can be no debate, even from the Left, that Trump is neither a Bush nor a Clinton. 🙂

  15. She has talked in the past about inheriting her maternal grandmother’s “responsibility gene”, and mentions to me that her daughter’s nursery has been encouraging conversations about the concept of fairness. “It gives us the chance to talk with her about what is fair, and that she already has unfair advantages because of who her parents are. I don’t think she really understands the concept of privilege yet, but I want her to be able to understand that as soon as she’s old enough to.

    of Chelsea Clinton

    Sadly she has drunk at the fountain of modern intellectualism.  Some of us are more fortunate in our parents, and this can reflect more than financial advantages, some parents are better at parenting.  Some of us have access to better school, libraries and all sorts of opportunities.  And some of us are born with inherent talents and physical abilities that others do not have.  Many who are ‘privileged’ waste their advantages; many who are not make it in spite of massive obstacles.   It is what it is.  That cannot be changed, while we should ‘play fair’ I do not think that we can make the world fair.

    Or do we want the world depicted in Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron?  That would be a loss for us all.   Or would we all prefer to be stick throwers for the future master race of dogs in William Tenn’s Null P

  16. Let’s see: I can read about that entitled bint Chelsea Clinton, or I can finish reading that online “Deathworlders” sci-fi serial somebody linked to a few posts back (and is now bookmarked on my “Favorites” bar). And then start in on Ringo/Correia’s “Monster Hunter Memoirs Saints” and Stirling’s “Black Chamber.”

    No contest. Although I’m left wondering what the PUFF would be on the clearly inhuman spawn of the Clintons (ok, Hillary and Webb Hubbell) . . .

  17. In the local paper someone wrote a letter to the editor that they titled “What is it about Hillary Clinton that makes conservatives so unhinged?”

    My guess? It’s that she won’t go away or shut up. When was the last time an unemployed former politician gets featured as front page news at least once a month?

    1. Well, she’s either formidably incompetent or (more likely, in my opinion) unsubtle in a brand of overt corruption we haven’t seen much since Boss Tweed fell.

    2. A friend observed that she has unfortunate taste in clothes, has made bad personal choices, is a terrible public speaker, a horrible campaigner and doesn’t seem to know when to quit.  This friend is not even a conservative.

  18. I think a lot of people, even politicians, could get behind an amendment that said: No person who is a spouse, child or step child, or parent or step parent, of a President shall be eligible to be elected to the presidency. No person who is a spouse, child or step child, or parent or step parent of a Senator, Representative, or Governor, shall be eligible to be elected to that office representing the same state for Governors and Senators, or the same district or any part thereof for Representatives.

    1. Divorce and terminating parental rights (with adoption if necessary) would make evasion too easy.

    2. I beg to differ.  

      If the people are idiot enough to want a candidate even when they are a member of a family that has served in office before I would not attempt to limit their choice, particularly through the Constitution.  That it is has proven a less than good practice on most occasions I will not deny.  I am just reluctant to promote a civil habit of that of addressing everything we find troublesome through law.

      We can take heart.  Hillary Clinton has failed twice, once to gain the nomination and once in the run for office.  Jeb Bush didn’t even get the nomination of his party, in spite of governing experience and family connections.  Name and connections are no guarantee of success in politics.

      1. Two terms for POTUS had to be done through amendment because a Democrat (of course) violated long standing tradition. Allowing anyone within one degree of consanguinity to hold a seat smacks of aristocracy which our forefathers sought to avoid. In an area as big as a state or nation it should be an easy thing to avoid. In a town of 250 people, probably not. It’s tough to fill seats on a local level at times. Never seems to be a shortage of people wanting to be congresscritters.

        1. Certainly our forefathers sought to avoid, but they did not see the reason to make it part of the Constitution. There are some things which is not best addressed through legislation, no matter how desirable you think it is, which I only wish the left would realize.

          There are issues no matter what you do. For example, in institutionalizing the two term limit on the Presidency we also created the problem of the lame duck period.

  19. Did you hear that Allison Mack has been cast to lead the Hollywood documentary on First Lady Hillary Clinton and her relentless persecution by the Republicans?


    1. The way the Left has been carrying on, somewhere in the third a t the head Republican character will pull of his mask and regeal the Lizard Man underneath…

        1. The news about her wasn’t quite public enough. I think most of the stories I saw about the screwed up stuff she was doing only mentioned that “Smallville actresses” were involved. Only one or two mentioned that she was responsible for a lot of what happened, and what exactly she was responsible for.

  20. “She doesn’t do her father’s dirty work like Ivanka does.”

    She absolutely does. Chelsea didn’t invent the Clinton Foundation.

  21. Poor little rich girl. I really liked the name Chelsea and if I had had a girl (I didn’t have any children), I would have named her that… then the Clintons came to power. Sadly that name has been tarnished for me.

  22. OK, fair’s fair, Chelsea’s book interview had little to do with her book so my comment with have little to do with Amanda’s review of same. Here’s mt little to do with: Of course you deserve drinks after that Amanda.

    Now completely off topic: I admit I’m impressed with Walmart & Amazon bravely selling ‘Impeach 45″ tee shirts while Confederate flags are so beyond the pail (misspelling intentional) that they needed removal from the shelves however I suspect good marketing strategy would be to now sell ‘Jail 44’ tees. Shucky darn, I’d buy 9, one for every day of the week and one for Amanda and another for our hostess, Sarah.

    Also you probably know the Mayor of the Muslim caliphate Londonstan, has approved flying of a Trump baby blimp over his city during our President’s visit there. I suggest we, out of simple kindness and the spirit of good fellowship, fund a bearded head turban topped blimp to fly with it, noting on an attached banner/tail, “Of course this is not an image of Mohammad, that would be crude and disrespectful, that is simply a rendering of some eastern goat herding warlord and should not be interpreted as a slight aimed at your beliefs, instead understand it’s purpose is to reflect the multiculturalism making England grate again!”

  23. The corruption here is of the MSM, not Chelsea Clinton nor the American People. It is the MSM who has anointed her and the MSM who defer to her as royalty. Pretty much every where else in the US being “Chelsea” and $1.75 will get her a cuppa coffee at Starbucks. Her books sell because of the corrupt pushing of them by MSM publishing, not because of any innate public interest in her vapid thought and “unique” perspective. Whether she is even “author” of such books is improbable, but they certainly do not constitute difficult writing challenges.

    Of course, if ever she gives any evidence of independent thought — such as recognizing that unborn children are deserving of life or that private ownership of guns poses scant danger — rest assured her crown will be snatched away by the same promoters who first placed it upon her (unfurrowed by deep thought) brow. She is a tool and if ever she proves unreliable she will be discarded.

  24. I have always felt sorry for Chelsea, although she certainly would not recognize why, and even disliked here somewhat (because she is so vapid in her public persona), but recently I learned something that made me warm up to her somewhat.
    In an interview for some publishing rag (which I don’t remember the name of), she was asked about her favorite books. I know what you’re thinking….
    But– it turns out she is, like me, a huge fan of the amazing historical novels by Dorothy Dunnett comprising the Lymond Chronicles, and sees the series protagonist, Francis Crawford, as her first literary love-interest.
    I just can’t dislike her as much now, knowing that she appreciates very fine, complex, and subtle writing, and admires the world’s most excellent rogue – who resembles neither her father nor her mother.
    Wonders never cease.

  25. Here’s one of my favorite female role models. Molly Pitcher.

    Strange how she took some really hard knocks later in life; much like the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I suspect that most of them would have spit at any suggestion of socialism; although apparently she did accept a pension for her service. $40 a year when the dollar was still worth something.

Comments are closed.