|
Post by Amadan on Apr 23, 2017 8:09:58 GMT -5
Please God, Stop Chelsea Clinton from Whatever She Is DoingI haven't actually paid much (any) attention to Chelsea Clinton. I've rolled my eyes at people floating the idea that she'll run next. I don't know if this Vanity Fair piece is fair or just a hit piece, but boy does the description of Chelsea make her sound like a pill. I always felt sorry for her while she was growing up. Her father was one of the most public philanderers in history, and she was often not spared nasty slings and arrows from the Clintons' haters just for being their daughter. I remember a particularly ugly National Review cover in the 1990s - can't find it now, but it depicted Chelsea on Bill's lap with their expressions and postures giving a strong vibe of child molestation. Even some of NR's readers wrote in and told them that was a bit over the line, and this was during the height of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Pundits would openly call her ugly, say that boys who dated her were obviously only doing so because she was the Clintons' daughter, etc. She seems to have turned out to be a perfect product of the Democratic machine, though, spouting perfect Democrat sound bites and full of her parents' confidence and sense of self-entitlement. Very intelligent (as her parents clearly are) and yet while I think she cares about the "little people" in the abstract (as Bill did - I am not so sure Hillary ever really cared about anything except perhaps ideologies), she's got a thousand-mile-high view of the world. That's my take. And please God, Chelsea, don't run in 2020. Or ever.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 23, 2017 15:27:31 GMT -5
she's got a thousand-mile-high view of the world. I don't disagree with this, mainly because I think anyone who is born into wealth is, at best, only going to be able to employ imagination, intellect, and empathy on social issues, which is never going to be the same as experience. That said, if someone born into wealth is actively employing their imagination, intellect, and empathy on social issues, I can't really complain. Aaaand I have a bone to pick with this, from the article: I'm sorry, what now? A dating profile? This article is about a 37-year-old married mother of two. Why is Chelsea's manner of speaking being likened unto a bad dating profile? Oh, that's right, I almost forgot, because this is how some men STILL view women... in terms of their date-ability, which includes whether they talk at length (i.e., too much) and don't appreciate being interrupted. (Question for the author of the article: do you know anyone who likes being interrupted? Because interrupting is, yanno, rude. Maybe you've never been interrupted. Thing is, women are. All. The. Time.) But lest anyone think I am a humorless bitch, I will say that this (from the article)... ...made me snort coffee through my nose this morning.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Apr 24, 2017 11:37:16 GMT -5
Christine makes some good points above. Wow, it seems it's now en vogue to slam Chelsea Clinton. I read articles from National Review pretty regularly. Most often I find them partisan but fact-filled and often pretty intelligent and reasoned for a Republican like me to ingest and reinforce my views, haha. Rarely (never?) have I seen as angry and mean an article as the one from a couple days ago on Chelsea Clinton. Even the title bothered me. As I started to read, especially the first sentence (!!!) I wondered if it was a joke. What's going on? www.nationalreview.com/article/446973/chelsea-clinton-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-democrats-vapid-creep
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 14:36:04 GMT -5
Okay. My general take on Chelsea Clinton is fairly neutral. She has always shared in the general sympathy I have for all First Family kids who are forced to have a pretty stern spotlight on themselves and their parents that they never asked for. As an adult putting herself in the spotlight, however, she is now fair game for criticism. So far, she has neither given me particular reason to throw either rocks or adulation at her. She's smart, she's opinionated; I'm not ready to vote for her, but nor am I ready to dismiss her. It's all "we'll see" on that front.
But -- these articles are frankly bullshit. Seriously. They're bullshit. I'm not saying she deserves worship, but she just hasn't done or said anything to merit the hate and these articles really fucking dig and slant just to throw mud at her.
Like, in the Vanity Fair piece -- "she hates to be interrupted"? Really? And that's a fucking demerit? Yeah, most of us hate to be interrupted, and it happens to women far more than men. I've sat in a million meetings where people try to talk right over women -- men don't stand for that kind of thing for an instant and no one expects them to. Good on her if she objects instead of meekly shutting up. Now, if she goes around interrupting other people? THEN we'll talk about her feeling of self-entitlement. Until then? Fuck the hell off.
And that "did she really need to be so harsh on 71-year-old Rampling"? Love how they put the age in there to make it look like Chelsea was just beating up on a random grandma. First off, Rampling is a famous actress, not some random grandma in Poughkeepsie. Second, other people are 70ish too -- like Trump and Hillary, for example. Do we think their age makes them exempt from criticism? Fuck no. Nor should it.
IMO, not one of Chelsea's quotes is a problem, for all the slant on them. She sounds like a million other politically-opinionated smart people I know. And she is most certainly not "vapid." Holy fuck, really?! You may or may not like her opinions, but vapid she is not.
When she does something obnoxious, I'll be all ready to jump on her for it. Like I said, if she puts herself out in the public as an adult, she's fair game. I have no problem criticizing the Clintons and indeed have much practice at it.
But this shit? It's bullshit. And frankly? I find it sexist.
ETA:
I also tend to think she should not run for office, but it's not because I think she'd suck. (I so far have no opinion on whether she'd suck or be awesome.) It's because I think that whether she'd deserve it or not, she'd get a pile-on. For that reason, if she's inclined toward public service, I'd rather see her do it in a non-elected way.
ETA:
If these articles were just a little critical, I'd likely shrug. But they're serious pieces of sneering nasty, IMO far beyond anything she's done to deserve, at least yet.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 24, 2017 14:45:33 GMT -5
I read the "doesn't like being interrupted" thing as wanting to speak at length without interruption - and yes, most people don't like being interrupted, but on a TV talk show, when does that happen? Ever? To men or women? People interrupt and talk over each other all the time. Not saying there isn't a sexism factor there as well, but someone who expects to be allowed to hold forth at length while everyone listens politely to every word, in a venue where no one is routinely extended that courtesy, sounds entitled to me.
That said, I never watched her show. But her tweets do look pretty vapid to me - boilerplate "Rah rah, progressive politics is good." I didn't see wit or insight or anything other than the circle of backslapping that is all you find in most twitter streams. I.e., her twitter stream looks carefully cultivated and marketed.
But no, I don't hate her. I would have to see something truly amazing from her to be willing to vote for the third generation of a dynasty, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 14:54:45 GMT -5
Her tweets don't move me by their profound brilliance, but they sound pretty much like those of a jillion other political types, including elected representatives. What exactly should they sound like in 140 characters? Tweets are going to be soundbites. It's easy to make them dumb or offensive, but rather difficult to make them brilliant. Once in a while I see one that qualifies, but most political tweets are just rah-rah soundbites for whatever side the person is on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 15:12:15 GMT -5
I actually don't care about the dynasty thing. I care about nepotism -- people getting where they are solely because of their family. (The fact that you have other powerful family members may or may not indicate that. It's possible, indeed likely, that more than one brilliant, qualified person could emerge from a single family.) And I care about Trump having so many of his closest advisers be family. I'd rather see a president surrounded by people who are likely to call him/her on it if they do something wrong or stupid, and hiring family doesn't seem like the best way to accomplish that.
But if little Barron wants to run in 30 years? Yeah, I actually don't care. If little Barron suits me politically, I'd vote for him even if he is Trump's son. Ditto on Chelsea, the Bush girls, or the Obama girls.
I should note -- I haven't watched Chelsea's show either, and I might have a different opinion if I watched her in action. I'm going solely on what the articles are saying, and what I've seen of her on Twitter and elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 24, 2017 15:42:17 GMT -5
Her tweets are better than those of Jose Canseco.
Beyond that, I don't see her saying anything original or noteworthy...or doing anything original or noteworthy. She's gotten big money gigs and lots of attention--certainly some if it negative and unfair--because of who her parents are. She's hardly alone there, that's for sure, though she is obviously seeking the attention at this point in time. Meh. Even the braggadocio with regard to her five-year-old self's political acumen doesn't differentiate her from countless other self-promoters, imo.
However, this bit from the NRO piece is funny and--I think--completely fair:
The relevant quote is in the Vanity Fair piece: Come on, that's funny because it's so fucking ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 16:07:08 GMT -5
Her tweets are better than those of Jose Canseco. Beyond that, I don't see her saying anything original or noteworthy...or doing anything original or noteworthy. She's gotten big money gigs and lots of attention--certainly some if it negative and unfair--because of who her parents are. She's hardly alone there, that's for sure, though she is obviously seeking the attention at this point in time. Meh. Even the braggadocio with regard to her five-year-old self's political acumen doesn't differentiate her from countless other self-promoters, imo. However, this bit from the NRO piece is funny and--I think--completely fair: The relevant quote is in the Vanity Fair piece: Come on, that's funny because it's so fucking ridiculous. I'll give you the money comments -- they are a tad ridiculous. The very wealthy need to grasp that they may well think they don't give a damn about money, but that may very likely be because they have no idea what it's like to not have it. If you have never had money, you can say something like that. Or if you passed up a high-paying job to take a low-paying one, and you don't have a big cushion in the bank to cover the slack, you can say it. Or, perhaps, if you devote all your money to good works and live very, very simply, with no luxuries. Otherwise, best to STFU. ETA: But this is also not that unusual among trust-fund types. I went to school with a few kids from very rich families who didn't seem to get that some of us couldn't just drop $20 on random shit or go out for nice dinners every weekend.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Apr 24, 2017 16:22:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 24, 2017 16:27:02 GMT -5
But this is also not that unusual among trust-fund types. I went to school with a few kids from very rich families who didn't seem to get that some of us couldn't just drop $20 on random shit or go out for nice dinners every weekend. Oh, absolutely. I hope I didn't come across as implying this was unique to her. Nonetheless, she said it publicly and she owns it. And it's still funny. FYI, here's the context of the quote: www.fastcompany.com/3028155/chelsea-clinton-makes-her-move
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 17:32:21 GMT -5
It is funny, and it is ridiculous. And I'm all in favor of making fun of her (or anyone) to the degree deserved.
ETA:
I mean, if you have a hallway suitable for skateboarding -- in Manhattan, no less -- you really, really shouldn't be discussing your indifference to money.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 24, 2017 17:52:49 GMT -5
I'll give you the money comments -- they are a tad ridiculous. The very wealthy need to grasp that they may well think they don't give a damn about money, but that may very likely be because they have no idea what it's like to not have it. If you have never had money, you can say something like that. Or if you passed up a high-paying job to take a low-paying one, and you don't have a big cushion in the bank to cover the slack, you can say it. Or, perhaps, if you devote all your money to good works and live very, very simply, with no luxuries. Otherwise, best to STFU. ETA: But this is also not that unusual among trust-fund types. I went to school with a few kids from very rich families who didn't seem to get that some of us couldn't just drop $20 on random shit or go out for nice dinners every weekend. Agree with all of this. Notwithstanding, I do find it admirable that some wealthy people are liberal. I guess it happens much more often in NY and CA, but the combination is rare as hen's teeth around here. IMO, if you are wealthy and liberal---voted for Obama and/or Clinton, et al-- you are really putting your money where your mouth is. You're willing to cough up more of your money--your trust fund income, or whatever--for government programs. You're not clamoring for lower taxes or bitching about your money going to "entitlements" and "handouts" and "socialism." I've told this story before, but one of my clients owed a decent sum of money the first year the NII tax was instituted in 2013. The ACA came with a new 3.8% tax on net investment income for people with AGI over $200,000 ($250,000 for married filing joint). 3.8% is a small percentage, granted, but it's still actual money. Even though my client had paid in safe harbor - 110% of the prior year's tax -- she still owed like, $40k. Not a huge amount for her, but still, actual money. Not knowing her political views, I said at our meeting, "Well, look at it this way: you've basically paid for a year of insurance for like, three families. Heh." I said it mildly enough, but with a hint of sarcasm, as I was all set and ready to sympathize with the expected (and previously observed in meetings with other clients) outrage and/or disgust at the unfairness of the Evil Obama Socialist, taking more and more of her money, or somesuch. But instead... her face lit up and she smiled, and said, "Well, then. That's good!" And after I picked myself up off the floor... We became friends, obviously! Maybe it's just because I see the other side of it so much, but criticizing wealthy liberals for being "out of touch" is not a place to which I feel any inclination to go.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 24, 2017 19:36:27 GMT -5
Most of the wealthy (and I mean in the 1% at the very least) people I know ARE liberal. Or at least that's how they present themselves. Not all of them, to be sure, but most of them. Course, I live in South Florida, not Bentonville, Arkansas.
But the uber-wealthy ones, well they are as Cass noted, by and large: oblivious to the limitations other have when it comes to spending money. It always sucked to go out to dinner with such people, as I'm a big believer in splitting the bill evenly in group situations.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 24, 2017 20:10:45 GMT -5
I can't even begin to parse that post. Liberal how? Do they approve of the wealthy "paying their fair share," or are they just cool with "teh gays"? Are you saying that wealthy people you dined with expected you to pay for their dinner? Then, they'd be douchebags. Are you suggesting that when you dine with wealthy people, they should pick up the tab since they're wealthier than you? Then, you'd be a douchebag. I live in "South Florida" too. Well, the Treasure Coast. Martin County. It's not Podunk and it's statistically way better off per capita than Miami.
|
|