Voting for Chelsea Clinton

[Are_grits_groceries]

I will stipulate that her career path has been unremarkable in preparing her for office. In addition, the companies she has chosen are not exactly models of civic responsibility.

However, if there is anyone that was schooled in the low road of politics, it was Chelsea. She was old enough and smart enough to understand not only what her parents issues were, she was also aware of the brutal attacks that were leveled. Her parents could shield her to a degree, but when she reached a certain age, she would have to have lived in a bubble to avoid what was going on.

In addition, she was able to see what the power of elected office can do. It can be used for both good and bad causes. No matter what the cause, you will have to fight to move it forward.

Many people claim that she has no idea how the poor or even middle class live. Really? Was she in that bubble when she visited her grandparents? The Kennedys never subjected themselves to living with those less privileged. That did not stop them from promoting programs that would help those without means.

It also didn't stop them from trying to at least learn about those they represented. You can never walk in the shoes of everybody you meet in order to completely understand their issues. However, you can make an honest attempt to understand their lives.

Would I vote for Chelsea? In a heartbeat.

Right now she is as qualified as eleventy billion people running for office or already holding some position. Would I vote for her until the end of time? Not unless she could show that she could at least handle the basics and more importantly show a willingness to learn about who she represents and how to actually make progress for them.

After witnessing the reality of her parent's marriage and being caught in the middle of that personal nightmare, at times I wouldn't blame her if she spent her days smoking weed under a bush. To watch the two people she loved and trusted beyond measure go through a brutal reckoning had to be extremely painful. That alone might give her a propensity to understand the unseen trials of others. She lived hers in public to a point.

We vote for people that we really don't know at all. We know who they want us to see. We gamble that reality will match the image to a great degree. Chelsea would be no different. I would take that gamble on her.

[MattBaggins]

1. If it's all right with you

I would wait and find out who is running against her and find out what ideas they have and what kind of background.

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. True.

If there was someone who is more qualified, that could change the equation. Their positions on issues and experience would also matter.
However, many seem to be listing things she has to accomplish before she would get a single vote.

[CurtEastPoint]

2. what office is she running for?

[Marrah_G]

3. I would want to find out her views on issues and things she would plan on doing while in office

If I agreed with the majority of those things I would vote for her.

However, I do not think just being the child of a president and SOS makes one automatically someone I would vote for.

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. I would too.

However, the list of requirements that some are putting forth are ridiculous IMHO. Being the child of a president and SOS does not disqualify her either.

[Marrah_G]

9. LOL well we are a nutty group here on DU :)

We do not lack passionate and very vocal members..hehe

I agree, it doesn't qualify or disqualify her.

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. My advice would be for her to

run for that bush I mentioned.

[Enrique]

4. ties to Wall Street

she and her husband enjoy great wealth due to one particular industry, financial services. That industry already owns our government and that has proved to be a disaster, it has caused suffering on a mass scale and will cause more.

Connections to that industry should be considered toxic, especially in the democratic party.

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. I could list many in office who have

toxic ties to the financial industry. They have actively taken advantage of their positions to make questionable decisions. They are from all parties.

In addition, you would be hard pressed to find many who have not taken election donations from that industry.

[Enrique]

12. i disagree

it actually varies greatly how close politicians are to Wall Street, there are a handful of Democrats that stand out. And I am talking about people who take contributions. If you look at politicians who have actually worked in the industry, the club becomes even more exclusive. And both spouses? Chelsea might even be a first as far as that goes, I dont know. And then add in her father and mother, both with very close ties as well.

[Upton]

6. Sorry..but I need more than a last name..

I'm not exactly inclined to look favorably upon political family dynasties anyway.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. Her last name should neither be

an advantage or disadvantage. However, if she ran for office, it would be both. That could not be avoided. Her ideas should matter most.

As far as a political dynasty, it would be the pretty much the smallest one possible. Compared to others, it is laughable.

[TheKentuckian]

13. The Clinton cult of personality is crazy to me and seems to look at our nations structural problems

and says "meh".

I'm not saying she should be excluded from consideration but to declare you want to vote for someone for essentially being the Clinton's kid and dealing with her parents tough marriage situation just doesn't seem in any substantive way based on reality or anything she presents.

Of course, I'm not inclined to desire a return of Bill Clinton or the ascendancy of Hillary. I don't really believe they have passed on values and a view of the people that I feel natural molds their kid to take this country where I would see it go. I figure Turd Wayers have passed on Turd Way values and until Chelsea strikes out in her own direction and or commits to her parents she is a nothingburger to me politically.

To commit to a vote to someone without any policy positions is just lapping up a brand.

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. If her name was Jane Smith,

and she had to deal with the pain that went with that family and marriage situation, I believe it is germaine. It gives someone with any grain of empathy a window into the pain other people have. It is only part of what would make up her personality.

You are also giving Chelsea no credit for having a mind of her own. She may have accepted some things she earned and rejected others. There are many people who do not follow lock step with the beliefs they were surrounded with. I am so far off the path most of my relatives are on that we think the other is completely lost.

I stated in a couple of my replies that I would like to know her positions on issues. I also said that f she was elected, that did not mean she had my vote forever. Some people are insisting that there are a lot of qualiications she should have. I disagree.

I am not voting for or against her because her name is Clinton. I also won't dump my preconceived ideas both good and bad on her. She has to stand up for what she believes and follow through.

[TheKentuckian]

15. I didn't say she didn't have her own mind, just that I don't know what it is and have interest in

her as a pol until she shares.

There are literally millions of John and Jane Smiths out there who have dealt with all kinds of family meltdowns and worse. Such a thing may well have bearing but it gets no one a job even clearing waste bins or working the counter at a diner, much less the House, Senate, or the Presidency.

If her name was Jane Smith or even Jayne Smyth, we wouldn't even be talking about any of this.