View Full Version : The Future is Chelsea
Is it just me, or are dark forces and eldritch powers working to promote the wonderful awesomeness of Chelsea Clinton?
I'm starting to see magazine covers and puff pieces sprouting up like poisonous mushrooms everywhere I look. Am I just being paranoid, or is there something going on?
She can run against Ivanka. Battle of the Century!
Please, some new blood...
What a joke. Please, say it ain't so.
iris lilies
4-25-17, 1:17pm
Someone told me that Chelsea and Livanka were friends, hng out together before this recent Presidential contest.
The National Review ran an Op-Ed regarding Chelsea a few days ago.
"Chelsea Clinton, most recently lionized on the cover of Variety, is a 37-year-old multi-millionaire who has never uttered an interesting word about any subject at any time during the course of her life. Judging from the evidence of her public statements, she has never had an original thought — it isn’t clear that she has had a thought at all. In tribute to her parents, she was given a series of lucrative sinecures, producing a smattering of sophomoric videos for NBC at a salary of $600,000 a year. She later went more formally into the family business, leaving her fake job at NBC for a fake job in her parents’ fake charity. She gave interviews about how she just couldn’t get interested in money and bought a $10 million Manhattan apartment that stretches for the better part of a city block."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446973/chelsea-clinton-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-democrats-vapid-creep
Her educational background seems quite solid. I suspect she'd do better if she wasn't burdened with the Clinton name.
Her educational background seems quite solid. I suspect she'd do better if she wasn't burdened with the Clinton name.
I don't know. There are plenty of mediocrities-and-below with pricey designer-label degrees. It shows good judgement on her part to have chosen parents with the requisite level of influence and unscrupulousness to advance her career in various fields.
Unscrupulousness? I guess if you believe she killed Vince Foster and then countless others to cover up her crime, ran a booming drug ring our of Arkansas, trafficked children out of the basement of a business that didn't have a basement, somehow arranged for a bloodbath in Benghazi, and--perhaps worst of all--conducted some as yet unspecified business on a private mail server (just like countless public servants have done before and since)--yeah, I guess she's a real crook.
I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I get tired of the constant drumbeat of half-baked tales and innuendo straight out of Breitbart. There are much, much worse things going on in politics than anything she did in her long run as a government employee.
Ultralight
4-25-17, 4:49pm
The National Review ran an Op-Ed regarding Chelsea a few days ago.
"Chelsea Clinton, most recently lionized on the cover of Variety, is a 37-year-old multi-millionaire who has never uttered an interesting word about any subject at any time during the course of her life. Judging from the evidence of her public statements, she has never had an original thought — it isn’t clear that she has had a thought at all. In tribute to her parents, she was given a series of lucrative sinecures, producing a smattering of sophomoric videos for NBC at a salary of $600,000 a year. She later went more formally into the family business, leaving her fake job at NBC for a fake job in her parents’ fake charity. She gave interviews about how she just couldn’t get interested in money and bought a $10 million Manhattan apartment that stretches for the better part of a city block."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446973/chelsea-clinton-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-democrats-vapid-creep When I read this I realized how she will be very, very successful in politics and become a dangerously powerful woman.
Unscrupulousness? I guess if you believe she killed Vince Foster and then countless others to cover up her crime, ran a booming drug ring our of Arkansas, trafficked children out of the basement of a business that didn't have a basement, somehow arranged for a bloodbath in Benghazi, and--perhaps worst of all--conducted some as yet unspecified business on a private mail server (just like countless public servants have done before and since)--yeah, I guess she's a real crook.
I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I get tired of the constant drumbeat of half-baked tales and innuendo straight out of Breitbart. There are much, much worse things going on in politics than anything she did in her long run as a government employee.
I wasn't thinking so much of her poor mother's martyrdom at the hands of the vast right wing conspiracy.
I was thinking more in terms of the aromatic fumes of influence-peddling wafting off the $600K entry-level NBC job or the Expedia Board seat or the consulting gig before she so selflessly went o work for the family foundation.
When I read this I realized how she will be very, very successful in politics and become a dangerously powerful woman.
You might even say she's inevitable.
I would put my money on Nikki Haley as the first female president. People want telegenic but not dynastic. Clinton's dowdy pantsuits did her no favors, especially those long tunic tops.
Ultralight
4-25-17, 5:49pm
You might even say she's inevitable.I weep for our future.
I weep for our future.
No kidding. If ldahl is correct with this thread it will be republicans for forever.
I would put my money on Nikki Haley as the first female president. People want telegenic but not dynastic. Clinton's dowdy pantsuits did her no favors, especially those long tunic tops.
The Donald clearly won because he was such a model of manly Republican pulchritude...(Where is that rolling on the floor emoji?)
If we persist in expecting female candidates to be physically flawless while giving any male with a pulse a pass, we'll never elect a woman. Mitch McConnell? Really?
Jane I don"t like it, but we are electing reality TV stars now.
Jane I don"t like it, but we are electing reality TV stars now.
Then I want Joe Kenda...
Rodie Sanchez for veep.
Law and Order, baby!
Or how about Oprah. Everyone loves Oprah! Or Martha Stewart. She would undoubtedly decorate the white house better than any first lady ever has while being president at the same time!
Tulsi Gabbard? She's photogenic enough for anyone.
Besides, she's named after one of my favorite herbs.
If we persist in expecting female candidates to be physically flawless while giving any male with a pulse a pass, we'll never elect a woman. Mitch McConnell? Really?
I've heard many reasons advanced for Clinton's defeat: the Russians, a media conspiracy with evil Fox at the vortex, Sandernista sore losers, general deplorableness, the FBI, dark money, bright money, fake news, incompetent staffers, etc. I've never heard anyone claim it was because she wasn't pretty enough.
And 45 was elected with everything you have mentioned in Hillary's defeat. No one cares that he is incompetent and a lying fool. The hatred and fear of Hilliary was certainly sexist beginning with her having the gall to attempt health care reform as First Lady.
And 45 was elected with everything you have mentioned in Hillary's defeat. No one cares that he is incompetent and a lying fool. The hatred and fear of Hilliary was certainly sexist beginning with her having the gall to attempt health care reform as First Lady.
I think many, many people care about Trump's many faults. I know I do. But it does not follow from that that Clinton was defeated by the "hatred and fear" of the deplorable electorate.
Despite spending twice the money, a fawning media and having an obnoxious clown for an opponent she still managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of inevitability. Why? I don't think it was sexism. I think it was because she ran as the very model of a modern political elitist at a time when Western countries seem to be losing patience with their elites. To be fair to her, I don't think many people saw it coming (although you could probably say the Brexit vote provided a hint).
My personal opinion was had she been a white male the hate mongering would not have been nearly so strong. The elitist attitude helped bring her down, but I still feel had she been male, it wouldn't have been so strong. Even Mitt Romney did not garner the same vehemence.
Sexism is not subtle, just list her "faults" with 45's ""faults" but give her a name that is male....The hate and fear have been building since she had the gall as First Lady to tackle health care. Elitist behavior isn't helpful, but that's less than a factor than that she was a "nasty woman".
catherine
4-26-17, 10:33am
Interesting discussion....I'd like for the males reading this thread to name 5 females that have your utmost respect, and why. They have to be alive, and be in some kind of public service (and you can interpret that broadly--I just don't want "my mother" or "Meryl Streep" to crop up)
ApatheticNoMore
4-26-17, 10:43am
maybe the hatred wouldn't have been as strong but she may have lost anyway, in many ways people probably took out their weariness of the Obama years that were supposed to start out so hopeful but delivered so little, and things like 8 years of a sucky economy since the recession, on Hillary seeing her as the continuation of more of the same as the Obama years. She of course also had her own corruption, but I guess you can say they all do (uh most, hard to put Sanders in the same category there though)
No Trump doesn't make ANYTHING better, he's in fact governing even worse than he campaigned.
Comparing Hillary's faults with W's faults is completely irrelevant, candidates are not evaluated for platonic characteristic in some sort of timeless historical vacuum, people run for election at certain periods of time with certain things going on, W ran at a certain time, Hillary another.
Both Trump and W of course had to be installed by the electoral college, but at least Trump really had the requisite states under those rules, W likely never did. If W is looked at kindly now, maybe it's because Obama continued most of his policies and the space to oppose BIpartisan policies in this country really isn't there.
My personal opinion was had she been a white male the hate mongering would not have been nearly so strong. The elitist attitude helped bring her down, but I still feel had she been male, it wouldn't have been so strong. Even Mitt Romney did not garner the same vehemence.
It did not seem to me that there was a vast reservoir of misogyny working against her. It was more a question of widespread indifference. She simply didn't excite the people that Obama did. I think many people that would normally have turned out for her may have considered the result to be a foregone conclusion (I know I did) and didn't bother showing up, especially disappointed Bernie supporters. It didn't help that she didn't make a serious effort in states she wound up losing by thin margins.
It did not seem that it was the malice of the right that did her in so much as a lack of enthusiasm on the left.
The combinations were fatal to winning.
Teacher Terry
4-26-17, 12:30pm
Oprah said now that you don't need any qualifications or experience to be president she may run:~). I clearly think that Clinton lost because she was a woman. I think we will be done with Donald by the end of 4 years since I don't think he could get re-elected but I have been known to be wrong before. I hope the democrats find someone good to run against him.
Oprah might be able to win. She seems an awful lot smarter than most candidates, and as qualified as Pres. Trump, similar qualifications, actually. And she is a lot more charming and easy to like than most politicians.
Caroline Kennedy? Seems I heard her name thrown out in a recent article on possible running for Pres? Someone's wishful thinking, maybe.
Ultralight
4-26-17, 5:08pm
It did not seem to me that there was a vast reservoir of misogyny working against her. It was more a question of widespread indifference. She simply didn't excite the people that Obama did. I think many people that would normally have turned out for her may have considered the result to be a foregone conclusion (I know I did) and didn't bother showing up, especially disappointed Bernie supporters. It didn't help that she didn't make a serious effort in states she wound up losing by thin margins.
It did not seem that it was the malice of the right that did her in so much as a lack of enthusiasm on the left. It was not that she was a woman. It is more about the kind of person and the kind of politician she is that lost Hillary the election.
It was not that she was a woman. It is more about the kind of person and the kind of politician she is that lost Hillary the election.I don't think it was just that, although it certainly figured into the equation. I think an equal measure included her decision to make her being a woman a cornerstone of her campaign. It seems you can't be a Democrat without engaging in identity politics and it's wearing a little thin on the general populace.
I don't think it was just that, although it certainly figured into the equation. I think an equal measure included her decision to make her being a woman a cornerstone of her campaign. It seems you can't be a Democrat without engaging in identity politics and it's wearing a little thin on the general populace.
It's not a surprise that she did that. She tried the non gender campaign 8 years earlier and that also failed. So it makes sense that she would blame her loss then on not playing up the female aspect of her biology. But as it turns out, UA is right. People just don't like her regardless of whether she makes us aware that she's a woman or not.
iris lilies
4-26-17, 7:59pm
It's not a surprise that she did that. She tried the non gender campaign 8 years earlier and that also failed. So it makes sense that she would blame her loss then on not playing up the female aspect of her biology. But as it turns out, UA is right. People just don't like her regardless of whether she makes us aware that she's a woman or not.
I dont know, maybe.
I like Hillary well enough, but I soon became tired of "its time we had a WO Man!!!" Rhetoric. I actually think she is smart and has a sense of humor and is hard working, and is tempermentally better for the job than the current occupant of the White House.
But the WO-man! stuff is still going on. I was kinda taken aback to hear Sanders slander this week. Apparently Hillary's loyal supporters arent just Democrats, they are Hillary Democrats. And Bernie, well, he is a M-a-n.
It was not that she was a woman. It is more about the kind of person and the kind of politician she is that lost Hillary the election.
I think the last election was about picking the outsider - Trump was, Sanders was. Clinton was a continuation of the oligarchy. You don't have to go further than Congress's approval rating to see people are not happy with the system.
Granted I think people voted in something much worse, but change sometimes goes in that direction.
I think the last election was about picking the outsider - Trump was, Sanders was. Clinton was a continuation of the oligarchy. You don't have to go further than Congress's approval rating to see people are not happy with the system.
I think there's a lot of truth in that, and that Hillary's loss was at least partly due to the climate of the times.
So are we seeing an attempt at a Clinton V3.0 in the recent Chelsea hagiography? Will they get it right next time?
If so, it might be considered the greatest media construction project since the Monkees.
I dont know, maybe.
I like Hillary well enough, but I soon became tired of "its time we had a WO Man!!!" Rhetoric. I actually think she is smart and has a sense of humor and is hard working, and is tempermentally better for the job than the current occupant of the White House.
But the WO-man! stuff is still going on. I was kinda taken aback to hear Sanders slander this week. Apparently Hillary's loyal supporters arent just Democrats, they are Hillary Democrats. And Bernie, well, he is a M-a-n.
Yes, I got into an unpleasant disagreement with a friend of a friend on Facebook a couple of months back. It was her opinion that anyone who voted for sanders in the primary was sexist. Full stop. Not even when I pointed out that if the candidates had been different, say Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, I would have voted for the woman, did the friend of a friend back down in her accusations. That's when I gave up and went scorched earth and asked her to stop lady'splaining to me about what my thoughts are and stopped the notifications for that conversation.
Yes, I got into an unpleasant disagreement with a friend of a friend on Facebook a couple of months back. It was her opinion that anyone who voted for sanders in the primary was sexist. Full stop. Not even when I pointed out that if the candidates had been different, say Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, I would have voted for the woman, did the friend of a friend back down in her accusations. That's when I gave up and went scorched earth and asked her to stop lady'splaining to me about what my thoughts are and stopped the notifications for that conversation.
Welcome to the basket of deplorables.
Yes, I got into an unpleasant disagreement with a friend of a friend on Facebook a couple of months back. It was her opinion that anyone who voted for sanders in the primary was sexist. Full stop. Not even when I pointed out that if the candidates had been different, say Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, I would have voted for the woman, did the friend of a friend back down in her accusations. That's when I gave up and went scorched earth and asked her to stop lady'splaining to me about what my thoughts are and stopped the notifications for that conversation.
Susan Sarandon took a beating by being a Sandernista rather than a Hillary supporter. It makes no sense to support a woman "just because." At the same time, it's interesting that almost every other developed country has been been able to support and elect a qualified female candidate. I'm afraid that there are still a whole heck of a lot of people in the US who feel that being President of the United States is "a man's job."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.