Maureen Dowd aims her snark at Chelsea Clinton

[Cyrano]

From today's NY Times.

As the 34-year-old (Chelsea Clinton) tries to wean some of the cronies from the Clinton Foundation — which is, like the Clintons themselves, well-intended, wasteful and disorganized — Chelsea is making speeches that go into foundation coffers. She is commanding, as The Times’s Amy Chozick reported, up to $75,000 per appearance.

There’s something unseemly about it, making one wonder: Why on earth is she worth that much money? Why, given her dabbling in management consulting, hedge-funding and coattail-riding, is an hour of her time valued at an amount that most Americans her age don’t make in a year? (Median household income in the United States is $53,046.)

If she really wants to be altruistic, let her contribute the money to some independent charity not designed to burnish the Clinton name as her mother ramps up to return to the White House and as she herself drops a handkerchief about getting into politics.

Or let her speak for free. After all, she is in effect going to candidate school. No need to get paid for it, too.

(snip)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-isnt-it-rich.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

Okay, so Chelsea is making money based on who she is. Lynn Cheney is trying (and failing) to do the same thing, and Luke Russert is sitting in an inherited seat at NBC. To me, they are both more offensive than Chelsea. And both would have been far better targets for MoDo's snark.

So why Chelsea? Well, I guess it's either been a slow news week, or MoDo doesn't want to deal with the ten tons of crap that would be thrown at her for taking shots at either Lynn Cheney or Luke Russert. So why not pick on Chelsea? After all, she's an easy, no risk target.

[Kalidurga]

1. Because Moremean Dowdy

has a pet project it's to snark on the Clintons and anyone associated with them. I don't like her because she is an incoherent writer at best.

[Metric System]

2. LEAVE MAUREEN ALONE! She's still recovering from her pot overdose.

[House of Roberts]

3. No, she was like this before the pot overdose.

She's already back to what's normal for her.

[CTyankee]

10. yep. she's been this way about the clinton's since forever...

I think she's been at it for so long she can't write much about anything else...

[trumad]

4. Mo wondering out loud why someone is worth all that money?

I've often wondered why Mo Dowd is worth 5 words in the NYT?

[Cyrano]

6. You'd think the NY Times would be searching

around for someone in Molly Ivan's league. There are a lot of good writers out there. Why don't they go talent hunting?

[Stellar]

5. I don't have a problem with them

...being able to get a job because of who their parents are, I just have a problem with the amount they are being paid. They should all start slowly then work their way up. They've got a job because who their parents are, now damn it...earn those big salaries.

[Walk away]

14. That is pretty ridiculous. Who could possibly be so stupid as to ask to make less...

because they have family connections? It doesn't really make sense on any level.

[former9thward]

19. Then you must have no problem with CEOs making tens of millions.

After all who could possibly be so stupid to ask to make less. The income inequality argument must be applied to everyone -- even those people named Clinton.

[bigtree]

23. Ceo's?

You conflate businesses with this private citizen's income? Could you make a more irrelevant and nonsense comparison?

[EX500rider]

30. CEO's ARE private citizens too i believe. n/t

[bigtree]

36. her speaking engagements have nothing to do with business

. . .so this is an idiot's argument (an argument for the benefit of idiots)

[EX500rider]

39. "her speaking engagements have nothing to do with business"

Yea I agree they are less productive then a company that actually produces a tangible product for sale.

[former9thward]

31. Right, its bad for business to pay ultra high salaries

but just fine for "private citizens" to make ultra high salaries. Where do you think that money comes from? It is a perfect comparison, you just don't like it.

[bigtree]

35. her fee comes from the people who show up to hear her speak and the organizers, of course

. . . it has nothing to do with average consumers. If they don't want to hear her speak, they don't pay.

This has NOTHING to do with business.

[former9thward]

37. The people who hear her speak are business people.

The business writes those checks. But to follow though on your logic a consumer does not have to buy products from a business that pays their CEO high salaries. Right? No, you are for getting rid of income equality for everyone except the people you like. They deserve that money!

[bigtree]

41. you don't know crap about who attends those events

. . . pretending like you do just makes you look foolish.

[former9thward]

42. No, your attempt to defend obscene fees

makes you look foolish.

[bigtree]

43. it's not your money, it's not mine

. . . it's the business of whoever organizes the events and whoever attends.

End of story.

[moriah]

17. C'mon, $75k is baby bucks to the Clintons re: speech fees. Papa Bill has gotten a $500k advance....

.... for 'em before.

Should child actors be compensated less because they're children?

[Stellar]

45. You've got a point there...

but I'm an old ass retired woman that never earned 75K a year in my entire life, no matter how much experience or education I've had. Will the Clinton family be able relate (or have compassion) to my situation in life? I remember when some lawyers would work pro bono until they billed up their skills. That was what came across my mind when I first mentioned this. I guess it's a new day now.

[mercuryblues]

7. Go eat another cookie dowd

Chelsea is making speeches that go into foundation coffers.
<snip>

If she really wants to be altruistic, let her contribute the money to some independent charity not designed to burnish the Clinton name


It is not so much that she commands that fee, but where it goes. Dowdy doesn't think it should be going to a foundation that supports leadership, fighting global climate change, equal rights for women etc.

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/

Did she have any qualms when Palin was commanding $100,000 plus for speaking fees that lined her own pocket? Doubt it.

[Glorfindel]

8. I get the impression from her writing that Dowd is a bitter, disappointed, and deeply unhappy person

It's a mystery to me why anyone would actually pay her to write her drivel. On the other hand, her writing got my attention, so I guess I'm the sucker after all.

[CTyankee]

9. She's been like this since Clinton was president. It's getting seriously OLD...

[Cyrano]

11. If Hillary becomes president, we

can look forward to many more years of Dowd Snark.

[Walk away]

12. Maureen hates any woman....

who she perceives as more respected or powerful than herself. In fact, she seem to have a problem with powerful people of color as well. It's as if only white men are allowed to succeed. Maybe she was brainwashed by some kind of Catholic/Patriarchy programming as a child. That church has turned out some severely indoctrinated people and Maureen wallows in it.

[Tom Ripley]

34. +1000

[Romulox]

13. Chelsea is yet another hereditary monarch--a plutocrat riding nepotism straight to the top.

A person well compensated for their sound decision to be related to someone famous. Truth hurts a lot.

That said, Maureen Dowd is a joke, too.

[Cyrano]

15. Chelsea is doing no harm with her inherited fame,

unlike so many (e.g. the Koch brothers, Donald Trump, George W.) who inherited everything they have and pollute everything and everyone they touch.

As far as inherited wealth, Chelsea and her parents are no where near being in the one percent. Yes, they're millionaires, but a few million bucks ain't what it used to be.

[moriah]

18. Uh, as of 2010 Bill cleared $75 million in speech fees.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2013/11/25/are-you-rich-enough-the-terrible-tragedy-of-income-inequality-among-the-1/

The top 1/100th of the 1% make over 10.2 million a year, the top 10% of the top 1% make 1.9 million a year. They're well within the top 1%.

Edit: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/11/clinton-surpasses-75-million-in-speech-income-after-lucrative-2010/ -- 10.9 million one year alone.

[woolldog]

28. And...

good for them. The Clinton's are doing good with their money. I have no problem with people making money honestly, without exploiting others.

[moriah]

33. I never said anything was wrong with it, I stated facts in response to non-facts. n/t

[former9thward]

20. They have been in the 1% for a long time.

Estimates of their net worth range from $80 to $100 million. That is more than "a few".

[Cyrano]

21. Okay. My bad.

Yet, I don't see them using their wealth to damage us peasants.

[conservaphobe]

16. I'd question her character if she DIDN'T. nt

[bigtree]

22. this gets recs here

. . . belongs on discussionist

Why the hell shouldn't she invest in the foundation that's she's a major part of? This is beyond stupid. This is a topic for idiots, plain and simple.

[tavernier]

24. But it's perfectly fine

for me to have to listen to the brilliant insights of Jenna Bush every morning on the Today Show? While I eat breakfast???

[former9thward]

32. Why would you listen to either of them to get insights?

[Nye Bevan]

25. Snarky, yes, but she does have a point.

What better way to curry favor with possible future president Hillary Clinton than to pay big bucks to her daughter? And it's all legal and above-board!

[Babel_17]

26. It doesn't look good to some voters

Frankly, I'm more worried by the inability to see how this is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

[11 Bravo]

27. MoDo the Dodo's snarky bullshit got tiresome quite some time ago.

[freshwest]

29. Dissing Chelsea is standard since Rush called her a dog and a writer called for her being killed...

For being the evil spawn of Hillary. I forgot who that piece of work was, but it was quite ugly.

Really, there is no more that can be said to denigrate her now, than there was then, but they have to vent on the easy target that she always was as the child of Bill and Hillary.

Her being alive and happy just burns up the right wing hate machine. It's safer in media to go along with the haters. So Dowd is just going with the flow.

[PCIntern]

38. Wait one minute...

I thought we were living in a Capitalist society. She is by definition worth what someone will pay her. She can get 75K for a speech? It must be worth it to whatever fundraiser/corporation/foundation or they wouldn't pay her. I used to book these asshole lecturing dentists with national reputations who would say nothing special for 4 grand plus expenses back in 1980. Do the math for inflation and that was for a dentist, not for the daughter of a President of the United States. It was worth it in revenue though - we used to clear 8-10 grand from the day for our organization.

I understand the issue, but as they say, it, in the end, is all about the money.

[Beacool]

40. I see that MoDo has extended her obsession with the Clintons to now include Chelsea.

If someone wants to pay Chelsea $75,000 to hear her speak, more power to her. The fact that she's not keeping the money is commendable.

The Clinton Foundation was not established to burnish the president's name, it may have done so, but that wasn't its main goal. Most of the men in Bill's family have died in their early 60s. He felt that he was on borrowed time. After he left the WH he had three goals: 1) pay off their debt (BTW, he paid off their legal bills and those of their staffers to the tune of $14M), 2) leave Hillary and Chelsea financially secure and 3) find a way to continue with the causes that he and Hillary believed in by establishing a foundation.

There are thousands of people who would be dead, primarily in Africa, if it weren't for the Clinton Foundation. The foundation found a way to come to an agreement with pharmaceutical companies to reduce the cost of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs.

"The second large-scale strategy involves third-party consultation and price negotiation with generic ARV suppliers, a practice introduced by the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI) in 2003. In practice, CHAI attempts to make ARVs more affordable by negotiating price ceilings that reflect suppliers’ costs plus reasonable and sustainable profit margins. Moreover, CHAI furthers this strategy by providing direct technical assistance to some suppliers to help lower their production costs. The resulting ceiling prices are made available to all members of the CHAI procurement consortium. Countries that wish to become part of the consortium sign a memorandum of understanding with CHAI and manufacturers are required to offer ARVs to these countries at prices equal to or less than CHAI-negotiated ceiling prices."

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/7/08-058925/en/

"Geneva, Switzerland and New York, NY UNITAID and the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (CHAI), a project of the William J. Clinton Foundation, today announced new agreements with generic manufacturers that significantly reduce the price of key pediatric and second-line antiretroviral medicines (ARVs) used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. These medicines are currently supplied to 42 beneficiary countries through two projects funded by UNITAID and implemented by CHAI. Beyond the scope of the UNITAID projects, the reduced prices will be available to over 70 developing countries that are members of the CHAI Procurement Consortium, and will also be extended to Global Fund recipients participating in the Global Funds new Voluntary Pooled Procurement scheme."

http://www.unitaid.eu/en/resources/news/198-unitaid-and-the-clinton-hivaids-initiative-announce-new-price-reductions-for-key-drugs

Other than snarky, nasty and bitter columns; what is MoDo's contribution to society? The same question for all the Clinton bashers who can't separate the good that the foundation does with their political antipathy of the Clintons. What are they doing to better the world?

[madinmaryland]

44. You ask why. It is because MoDo has Clenis Envy!!

[GoneOffShore]

46. I'm about equal in my dislike for Dowd and her reporting

And my basic distaste for the opportunism of the Clinton clan.

Seems a shame that it got passed down to Chelsea.

[JI7]

47. Maureen Dowd and Tim Russert were good Friends so she is not going to say anything about his kid

but it makes her a hypocrite.