He doesn't know what she's doing, but by God he knows he doesn't like it. A child of two of the most famous politicians being political shouldn't be a surprise, nor a crime. You can be politically active while not trying to establish some new 'dynasty.' He is offended that she is doing anything at all.

Observe his disgust at the request that she not be interrupted. Then, recall the research on how often women are interrupted in general, or look at how often Hillary was interrupted. It seems petty. How dare a women want to be able to express a thought without being talked over.

Or about how she couldn't possibly written a letter to the president at 5. I'd believe it. I did something similar - I wrote to the state legislature proposing a change to the state dinosaur. (Lots of putting words in her mouth, too.)

He seems to mock her tweets for not being these fully fleshed out ideas....when its a medium limited to 140 characters. Or was he mocking the idea of the wage gap being bad/existing? He bitches that she discusses her reading habits....in an interview about books, prompted by her publishing a book.

This reads like someone who is just looking for reasons to shit on someone because they are 1, a woman, and 2, a Clinton. And having a really, really hard time even finding reasons.

A child of two of the most famous politicians being political shouldn't be a surprise, nor a crime. You can be politically active while not trying to establish some new 'dynasty.'

With respect, I disagree. A close family member of a senior leader following the same path implies corruption. There's no way for the path not to be smoothed ahead of her in ways it would not be for anyone else.

I mean, honestly, there was absolutely no chance that someone like George W. Bush could have become president if his father hadn't been before him.

Yes, she will have advantages. She will have advantages in any field she goes into because her father was the goddamn president of the United States (and her mother nearly was also). By your logic, its impossible for her to do anything without it being some sign of corruption.

How about we wait for her to do something actually wrong before we get all angry at her, eh?

Going into politics is something wrong in my books.

Yes, she'll never accomplish anything on her own. So let her go do something that doesn't matter.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Unfortunately, we're not allowed to put corrupt politicians to the laser sword.

Except you apparently think there is no such thing as a politician (or proto-politician, or person even tangentially related to politics) that isn't corrupt.

There are plenty. Running on one's own merits and accomplishments is a pretty low bar to clear.

You know Chelsea isn't running for office, right? You're mad at her for what something you imagine her doing based on....publishing a book and having a Twitter account. That is her fucking crime.

Yet. If she never does, fair enough.

But I'll still sneer at her for being in the news. She's effectively a Kardassian.

I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing about the Bushes and the Kennedys too, before anyone else gets the bright idea of playing the misogyny card.

Right. This is actually a sore spot for me because of Justin Trudeau, who got handed the Prime Mininistership (and Paul Martin before him who tried, but was bald).

Who's telling the Kennedys and Bushes to shut up and stay out of politics?

Not enough people.

But misogyny did in fact, play a part. A large part in the elections. But I too am tired of the bushes or kennedy's or the kardashians. But it's not over. The trumps will now take the reigns. You can guarantee either one or both of the trump brothers or Ivancunt and man child jared will be splattered across politics for the next couple of generations.

The Hill-haters can't get enough.

Excellent point, Mr Loeb. One wishes columnists would stop with these articles, stop "increas[ing] Chelsea's exposure" and "tyi[ng] it to political despair". These articles just rehash "her forays into the public eye". And end up diminishing her career to a "dating profile". A more cynical person might think they're just using her name for "fashionability" and clicks. But surely not you, Mr Loeb.

Oops, I referenced the photographer, not the author, T. A. Frank. string.replace("Loeb","Frank") public static overall point of comment

She's a shallow spoiled rich kid indulging in conspicuous concern on Twitter. The article is merely pointing out that there's no need to take her seriously just because she has a famous last name.

Ya because a spoiled shallow rich person who tweets their policy statements could ever ride fame into power here.

Not if we ignore them like we should.

I don't know who you're talking to, once he became a contender for the nomination not talking about him was no longer an option and I certainly never said otherwise. But he never would have gotten to that point if the media hadn't given him tons of free coverage (while at the same time mostly ignoring the single most popular candidate in the race from either party). And if the media would shut the fuck up about Chelsea Clinton and her insipid opininons we might not have to suffer through yet another Clinton candidacy.

Actually I find it pretty easy not to talk about rich and famous people who have contributed nothing to society, it rarely even occurs to me.

Clinton didn't lose because of third party voters. She lost because she made people not want to vote for her.

You really think that's the only reason she lost? I think most everybody would be in agreement she didn't focus where she should have. Didn't run a good campaign. But that's not the only reason she lost. This election wasn't had in a vacuum. There are multiple reasons. I currently have about 10, and losing because she made people not want to vote for here wasn't one of them.

Mostly Comey's input, a week before the election, gave Trump a boost and inspired red voters to turn out.

She lost because she lost Obama voters in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin - the Rust Belt, places where resentment of the Clintons, NAFTA, and Wall Street Democrats is particularly high. If she had held those states, all of which Obama won, some of which hadn't gone red in decades, she would have won. If she'd won any 4 of them, or any 3 other than Iowa, she would have won. But she lost votes in all 5, as well as 28 other states, compared to Obama in 2012. The seven states where she did the worst compared to Obama are all in the Midwest.

The other things on your list may have hurt her, but nothing like her failure to compete in the Midwest. Clinton never visited Wisconsin, barely campaigned in Michigan or rural Pennsylvania, never appeared at a UAW union hall. And those voters returned her lack of interest in spades.

She got more votes than any candidate ever, except Obama 2008.

She brought her checkers game to a chess match.

I keep hearing Clinton diehards use the argument that she won the popular vote, as if that actually means anything. Before the election, the Clinton campaign was certain that Clinton was unbeatable thanks to the "Blue Wall" in the electoral college, but was worried she was going to lose the popular vote (which is why they wasted millions of dollars on GOTV in cities where it would have no electoral effect). And yet if things had gone the way Team Clinton anticipated and she'd creamed Trump in the EC but lost the popular vote, I bet there wouldn't have been a single Clinton supporter arguing that Trump should've won.

I was responding to your claim she made people not want to vote for her. That doesn't really square with the reality of getting more votes than any candidate ever, except Obama 2008. I get that she incites contempt and loathing in you, but it's a reach to think the mass of voters suddenly saw her as you do.

She lost voters where it counted. Getting more voters in California or New York or Illinois is meaningless.

And she was the second most disliked candidate ever in modern polling history, so the mass of voters isn't very fond of her either.

And how was that persona of the 'second most disliked candidate in history' created? There's no doubt she didn't focus on the states you mentioned above. Clearly. But you cannot discount the hit job and witch hunt over the last 30 years or the media that focused on it incessantly, yet ignored trumps dealings with russia or his inexperience and mental problems. The american public, especially the uneducated and narrow minded, are easily swayed. Clinton didn't recognize that fact, and thought most everybody would see the fraud that is a racist and sexist dumpster, and those that don't vote by party would make the logical choice. Those that are conservative and vote the party line would have voted for a ham sandwich with an "R" toasted on it. It said a lot about the american psyche and mentality. This is why the world is laughing at the US. We run a popularity contest, and the conservative right legitimized and condones anti intellectualism, inexperience, nepotism, racism, sexism, lies, and deceit, and re-branded it as nationalist populism, and the uneducated fell for it hook, line, and sinker. What does that tell the world when you run a campaign of hatred and divisiveness and then win? Policy, governance, or character meant nothing. Only xenophobia, bigotry, and demagogic fandom.

And getting more votes in coastal cities is certainly NOT meaningless. It highlights the fact that the "founding fathers" were completely wrong in their lofty idea that the EC is supposed to prevent idiots from being president. All it exists for is an escape valve for those already in power. Another example of the failure of originalism or the idea that the constitution is practically the word of god. Density matters. And thinking it was irrelevant just plays into the conservative narrative that "enclaves" of liberalism = coastal cities and states are failed. Irrelevant, and doesn't reflect the "real" america. It most certainly does.

Chelsea Clinton isn't dominating social media or the news media, nor does she have a national party behind her. There's no good reason to give her pointless fawning media coverage.

Fun fact: A friend of a friend went to Stanford with her, said the best part was when she's get the Secret Service to give them rides home from the bar. No drunk driving for her (and she took care of her friends).

All in all I have the impression she's a smart woman and more power to her to leverage "the brand" to support her cause. As long as her cause isn't seeking the presidency.

And even that, if she had some experience, more power to her. The Kennedy's were a political dynasty well before the Bush or Clinton era. Too bad the N+1 generation were such fuckwits.

If Chelsea's major accomplishment is name recognition, she is as qualified as our current asshole.

But unity!

Not the time for unity...It is the time of ideas, and to be honest the Dems are short on ideas and canidates. Right now I am willing to listen to anyone who has the guts to stand on a soapbox and talk. Yes even a Clinton for that mater even a Bush.

I doubt you get anything new from them but let em talk.

Oh fuck right off with your Clintons.

Fuck you you. no idea muther fucker. You don't have any thing to say about this ..get you ass back across the border.

"God has decreed that American political dynasties decline sharply in suitability for office with each iteration. Call it the George H.W.-George W.-Jeb rule."

Nice.

It is all the inbreeding.

Keep hate alive!

That is what this is just another Clinton hit job. There is nothing positive in this piece. And it is written about somebody who has never ran for public office in their life. I often wonder who was the most anti-Clinton the far right, the Russians or these pie in the sky so called liberals.

They do seem to have common interests.

How dare people who have never run for public office think they should have a say in who does! What do they think this is, some sort of democracy?

When and if she does...ya. In the mean time this just more of Clinton "hit job" trash. This shit goes way back. At least this one didn't accuse her of killing someone.

'Clinton death list': 33 spine-tingling cases
Bill and Hillary's 'friends' fall off buildings, crash planes, die in freak accidents


Nowadays it is getting hard to tell the far right from the far left.

Give it time.