Chelsea Clinton joins Expedia board of directors

[TexasTowelie]

Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) - Chelsea Clinton is joining the board of directors of online travel booking site Expedia.

Documents filed with securities regulators say the daughter of defeated U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has joined its 14-member board. The company is controlled by Barry Diller. Chelsea Clinton is also a director of another company that Diller controls, IAC/InterActiveCorp.

Expedia did not disclose how much she would be paid, but non-employee directors each earned more than $250,000 in 2015, according to the most recent regulatory filings.

Filings for IAC say Chelsea Clinton is entitled to receive $300,000 in a mix of stock and cash each year for serving as a director.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20170318_ap_6a905e8de314413fb1f0610ac6077472.html

[democratisphere]

1. Corporate contamination patronage job.

BAD!

[brooklynite]

3. Out of curiosity, what job WOULD be acceptable for the child of a political figure?

[jmowreader]

6. I'm pretty certain they'd accept them taking jobs as servers at mom-n-pop vegan restaurants

[democratisphere]

7. Some meat on the bone would certainly be OK, BUT receiving

the whole hog combined with all of its relatives and friends; c'mon!

[pnwmom]

31. As usual, no woman is ever well qualified enough. Even a woman with a PhD in International Relations

and experience as the Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation and past board experience isn't enough if you're a woman. Some people will automatically assume you are a lightweight.

[Red Mountain]

70. Right

She was picked out of all the other candidates for the job for these reasons.

Nobody in the whole US of A was more qualified.

Name recognition has nothing to do with it.



I say it's the good ole boys (and girls!) network in action.

Money to the power. Power to the money. One elite to rule us all.

[pnwmom]

72. She is a PhD in International Relations with experience running a $2 billion non-profit,

working as a management consultant at McKinsey, and experience being on multiple boards.

She is as well-qualified as anyone on the board.

With your attitude, it wouldn't matter how hard she has worked, there is nothing Chelsea could ever have done to qualify herself for a position like this, since you resent her so much for the circumstances she was raised in.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/chelsea-clinton-foundation-nbc-first-daughter

HOW CHELSEA CLINTON TOOK CHARGE OF CLINTONWORLD

But its very success created problems. The foundation grew so quickly it could hardly contain itself. By the time Chelsea arrived, there were more than 2,000 employees. There was no working infrastructure, no endowment or investment plan. Despite the large sums coming in, the foundation had reported an on-paper deficit of $40 million for 2007 and 2008, which Clinton later explained was a misleading accounting illusion. It was still being run by Clinton’s chief advisers from the White House days: Bruce Lindsey (the C.E.O.) and Ira Magaziner, and to some it still felt like the White House, with egos running amok and, according to a former colleague of Chelsea’s, “regular staffers who were not in the habit of challenging them.” There was intense concern about Doug Band, Clinton’s longtime “body man” and surrogate son, who’d come up with the idea for the Clinton Global Initiative (C.G.I.), the glamorous conference that became the centerpiece of the foundation. While still running C.G.I., Band co-founded Teneo, a corporate-consulting business, which came to be seen as too intertwined with and reliant on the president and his connections. The foundation was tarnished by some of the less attractive characters Band was bringing into its orbit, such as Raffaello Follieri—the Italian con man who was then dating Anne Hathaway.

Some control was clearly needed. And Chelsea started off with a McKinsey-esque bang—by helping to initiate an outside audit. “It was a very authoritarian action for someone who came in at day one,” says the former foundation employee. “The feeling was: we’re being audited—never a good word—because we’re doing something wrong. We wondered, Are our jobs at risk? That’s not a comfortable feeling for many people who’ve been dedicating their lives to the foundation.” The audit called for better management and budgeting policies. Lindsey was replaced as C.E.O. by Chelsea’s pick—Eric Braverman, with whom she had worked at McKinsey, and Magaziner’s job was greatly reduced. (Braverman left the foundation in January of this year over reported power struggles within the organization; Donna Shalala, Clinton’s secretary of health and human services, is now C.E.O.) Of the 13 financial-advisory firms that applied, the job of investing the foundation’s money went to Summit Rock, where Chelsea’s close friend Nicole Davison Fox is a managing director. (Her husband works with Mezvinsky.) It was felt in some quarters that Chelsea, who hadn’t paid her dues—by, say, spending real time in Africa, or cutting her teeth at one of the programs—was coming in and throwing her weight around. Lindsey and others complained to President Clinton but to no avail. “He has no ability to say no to her,” says a source familiar with the shake-ups.

For all the grumblings about nepotism, others believe that Chelsea is just the enforcer the foundation needed. Under her leadership, the various branches, once physically separated, were consolidated under one roof, and systems were put in place for the once disparate initiatives to communicate more effectively. The foundation rebuilt the board and started using data for measuring success. “We are now very conscientious about ensuring that we incorporate data, we’re measuring, and that we’re actually making course adjustments based on that,” says Maura Pally, senior V.P. of programs. “The ethos that Chelsea has really helped instill here is that, as you evaluate, if the answer isn’t ‘This is a perfect program’ that’s not a failure but rather a learning opportunity.” Around the office, teeming with people in their 20s and 30s, Chelsea’s mastery of information spurs people to keep on their toes. Pally says, “I would spend tons of time trying to get myself up to speed on certain things, and Chelsea’s doing so many different things and yet would blow me out of the water with what she had read about somewhere and analyzed and synthesized and spit back out in a completely compelling, accessible way.” Julianne Guariglia, who works across all of the initiatives, attests to Chelsea’s compassion when she talks with victims and survivors.

[Red Mountain]

73. You are correct......it's all about connections

She was born and bred to lead a corporate board.

Kudos to her for her......breeding.

She would certainly qualify on her own merits after another decade or two of experience. Preferably from the ground up. Preferably not in her family business.

You get that right? The enormous leg up her family name gives her?

Sigh. Oligarchy apologists.

Gross.

[pnwmom]

75. No. She wouldn't need a decade or two MORE experience to qualify for this board

no matter what her name is. She is already well qualified.

[Red Mountain]

78. Fair enough.

I see oligarchy in action.

You think she pulled herself up by her bootstraps.

We disagree.

[tenorly]

81. I agree with you in principle, Red Mountain.

But you must admit it was a far more thoughtful choice than joining the board of Monsatan or some other M.O.D.

[elehhhhna]

83. No no no she clawed her way to the top of the Clinton charity totem pole and earned every bit of it

the old-fashioned way –

[Chevy]

12. Or being on welfare till she is in her late 30's n/t

Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:45 AM - Edit history (1)

[SunSeeker]

21. LOL

[Mosby]

9. Not sitting on the board of a major corp

Maybe you could summarize CCs qualifications to sit on this companies board.

Her bachelors degree is in history and masters in public health.

Her work experience is consulting (what?) and working for NBC.

[George II]

15. Have you ever interviewed her for a job? How can you judge what someone's qualifications are....

...without actually speaking to her?

Remember, Bill Gates was a college drop out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Calista241]

27. Bill Gates founded and built his own company. If he'd applied to be on the board of a major

Corporation before he accomplished anything, they'd have laughed him out off the office.

And looking at the other board members of Expedia, they're all highly experienced executive managers with decades of experience. One is the CFO and the other is the chief counsel. They're all in their last job, or close to their last job before retirement.

Chelsea Clintons's resume doesn't even begin to compare to her new peers at Expedia.

[synergie]

53. Actually it compares pretty well, but one would have to take the time to take off

the blinders and actually look at her resume. The antagonism against her surname seems to have blinded you.

She compares pretty well with her peers and one would truly need to be blind and willfully ignorant to pretend she hasn't accomplished anything, one might laugh at such a person.

The theater guy is an executive manager with decades of experience? It's rather ageist to make such assumptions about these folks based on your bias against a woman with quite a few degrees to her name and a resume full of achievements that compare quite well to anyone who bothered to actually compare.

[Midwestern Democrat]

58. I had to look up the "theater guy" to see who you were talking about - I didn't even have to google

him once I saw the name - Scott Rudin - one of Hollywood's top film producers for over 30 years who was once president of production at 20th Century Fox.

[pnwmom]

33. She has a PhD in International Relations and is the Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation

and she has been a member of several other boards, among other things.

She is well qualified to serve on a corporate board, which aim for a diversity of backgrounds.

[Mosby]

64. I looked up her CV and saw the DPhil, didin't know what that was

I didn't intentionally leave out her PhD.

[BlueInPhilly]

101. DPhil is the same as PhD

PhD is Latin (Philosophiae Doctor)
DPhil is the UK equivalent (Doctor of Philosophy), usually from Oxbridge.

So that's Dr. Chelsea Clinton, DPhil to y'all.

[Hortensis]

54. Mosby, you're kidding? You think those are

the only qualifications of an intelligent, intellectually curious person who's lived the life she has? Without even mentioning anything else, though, her connections to people of influence are enormous. You may resent it, but these positions are perks of class position, and she's probably at least as qualified as many and more than some.

[Mosby]

63. I don't resent her, in fact I like her quite a bit

It's certainly understandable that the Clintons would accept offers from their friends that help Chelsea's career, but her sitting on two boards, earning more than a half million per year, all the while lacking any significant work experience is really bad optics.

[Hortensis]

65. Resent her appointment, not her. But, ok, it's the optics.

Gotcha.

Time to worry about the optics, though, would be when she decided to run for office. Given that people who've been forced to resign for sex scandals can usually safely run again in 5 years or so, my guess is she'll be okay.

Also, since a lot of money is foolishly seen as indication of success and worth, even to some degree among most on the left,... For my part, I want lots of knowledge and experience in my pols, but this will help there for those like me also.

It may repel the resentful and jealous, but oh well for those.

[pnwmom]

66. She has been helping to run the $2 billion Clinton Foundation for years, on top of her other

work experience.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/chelsea-clinton-foundation-nbc-first-daughter

HOW CHELSEA CLINTON TOOK CHARGE OF CLINTONWORLD

But its very success created problems. The foundation grew so quickly it could hardly contain itself. By the time Chelsea arrived, there were more than 2,000 employees. There was no working infrastructure, no endowment or investment plan. Despite the large sums coming in, the foundation had reported an on-paper deficit of $40 million for 2007 and 2008, which Clinton later explained was a misleading accounting illusion. It was still being run by Clinton’s chief advisers from the White House days: Bruce Lindsey (the C.E.O.) and Ira Magaziner, and to some it still felt like the White House, with egos running amok and, according to a former colleague of Chelsea’s, “regular staffers who were not in the habit of challenging them.” There was intense concern about Doug Band, Clinton’s longtime “body man” and surrogate son, who’d come up with the idea for the Clinton Global Initiative (C.G.I.), the glamorous conference that became the centerpiece of the foundation. While still running C.G.I., Band co-founded Teneo, a corporate-consulting business, which came to be seen as too intertwined with and reliant on the president and his connections. The foundation was tarnished by some of the less attractive characters Band was bringing into its orbit, such as Raffaello Follieri—the Italian con man who was then dating Anne Hathaway.

Some control was clearly needed. And Chelsea started off with a McKinsey-esque bang—by helping to initiate an outside audit. “It was a very authoritarian action for someone who came in at day one,” says the former foundation employee. “The feeling was: we’re being audited—never a good word—because we’re doing something wrong. We wondered, Are our jobs at risk? That’s not a comfortable feeling for many people who’ve been dedicating their lives to the foundation.” The audit called for better management and budgeting policies. Lindsey was replaced as C.E.O. by Chelsea’s pick—Eric Braverman, with whom she had worked at McKinsey, and Magaziner’s job was greatly reduced. (Braverman left the foundation in January of this year over reported power struggles within the organization; Donna Shalala, Clinton’s secretary of health and human services, is now C.E.O.) Of the 13 financial-advisory firms that applied, the job of investing the foundation’s money went to Summit Rock, where Chelsea’s close friend Nicole Davison Fox is a managing director. (Her husband works with Mezvinsky.) It was felt in some quarters that Chelsea, who hadn’t paid her dues—by, say, spending real time in Africa, or cutting her teeth at one of the programs—was coming in and throwing her weight around. Lindsey and others complained to President Clinton but to no avail. “He has no ability to say no to her,” says a source familiar with the shake-ups.

For all the grumblings about nepotism, others believe that Chelsea is just the enforcer the foundation needed. Under her leadership, the various branches, once physically separated, were consolidated under one roof, and systems were put in place for the once disparate initiatives to communicate more effectively. The foundation rebuilt the board and started using data for measuring success. “We are now very conscientious about ensuring that we incorporate data, [that] we’re measuring, and that we’re actually making course adjustments based on that,” says Maura Pally, senior V.P. of programs. “The ethos that Chelsea has really helped instill here is that, as you evaluate, if the answer isn’t ‘This is a perfect program’ that’s not a failure but rather a learning opportunity.” Around the office, teeming with people in their 20s and 30s, Chelsea’s mastery of information spurs people to keep on their toes. Pally says, “I would spend tons of time trying to get myself up to speed on certain things, and Chelsea’s doing so many different things and yet would blow me out of the water with what she had read about somewhere and analyzed and synthesized and spit back out in a completely compelling, accessible way.” Julianne Guariglia, who works across all of the initiatives, attests to Chelsea’s compassion when she talks with victims and survivors.

[karynnj]

60. Well, she is not Catholic and she is married - so nun is out

I agree with your point and add that her first job - based on her education and connections - was at a hedge fund. Many here thought that terrible - ignoring that someone in that position at a hedge fund could push for supporting ventures that not only make money, but accomplish objectives that everyone here might agree with - like green technology or improved transportation. Clinton later got an Oxford PHD in international relations and she might be the only person who came out far better than expected when Podesta's emails were hacked. On the board of the Clinton Foundation, she was a force for cleaning things up. (Yes, I know that some of those she tangled with attacked her back - which is not surprising as she was on target against them. Note - this almost makes me think she may have the strengths of her parents with more willingness to follow rules.)

Those three very different points - being hired by a hedge fund out of school, having an Oxford PHD in International Relations, and the never intended to be seen actions she took at the Clinton Foundation suggest that she is a brilliant, talented woman with strong values who would be an asset to any board that hired her.

Part of the problem is that we think we KNOW Chelsea - having seen her grow from a pre teen to the competent woman she now is. This is a double edged sword - giving her the ability to draw huge crowds in support of her mother, but making everything in her life public. Of course, she benefitted from being the daughter of two world famous people, but from what we actually know, she is brilliant, hard working and willing to take on entrenched adversaries.

[alarimer]

94. Doctor, lawyer, teacher, marine biologist

It doesn't matter except something useful.

Just another example of how the power-that-be make it easy for their kids and their rich friends' kids while they SHIT on everyone else.

[brooklynite]

95. So, it's NOT that she's "not qualified"; it's that it's "not FAIR that she's qualified".

Or is it (more simply) "corporations are bad, so NOBODY should be on their Boards"?

[alarimer]

97. Nope, it's about the connections, nothing more.

I'm sure there are lots of qualified people who don't have the connections. It's all about connections because that's not really a "job". Getting paid hundreds of thousands to meet a few times a year, if that.

She trades on her connections just like the Trumps do, only maybe a little less crassly. And because she has a famous name we happen to like, it's all okay.

Democrats purport to believe in a meritocracy, where anyone can get anywhere if they try hard enough. But it simply isn't true.

[George II]

17. Why do you say that? How do you blithely come to the conclusion that it's a "patronage job"?

[Lil Missy]

99. If she is half as smart and hard working as her mother, she deserves it. n/t

[redwitch]

4. Um, not Ivanka.

I'm pretty sure Ivanka's dad is the one doing that.

[Chevy]

5. And how did President Clinton do this???? n/t

[Chevy]

11. Then perhaps poster should read op properly n/t

[YOHABLO]

10. So why Chelsea Clinton? American aristocratic. She's related to influence.

So she gets the big bucks. That's how it goes here in the good ole' U.S. of A.

[George II]

14. Why not?

[synergie]

52. It might have to do with her resume, that's how it actually works in the USA unless

the person is a woman, in which case there are those who insist on pointing out that it must because of her father or her husband. Which would be surprising in the good ole' U.S. of A. except that misogyny runs rampant here and there are those who prefer to attack without knowing what they're talking about or what they are exposing.

Sad, huh?

[JudyM]

59. What a laugh. Right, questioning this is misogyny.

The only thing worse is crying misogyny for any criticism of s woman, as if principle doesn't matter at all where a woman is concerned. That is reverse discrimination, in fact, and does s lot of "crying wolf" harm to the cause of feminism.

[BainsBane]

62. Actually given that these objections ONLY arise

in regard to women, while far greater wealth by men is regularly justified, what would you call it?

I'll bookmark this for discussions of the financial disclosures of congressmen that are due in June. I can just about guarantee you'll be telling me then how $10 million is a perfectly acceptable level of wealth.

[synergie]

67. Right, dismissing a woman's accomplishments by reducing her to a mere wife or daughter is misogyny

Sorry, but the only thing worse than actually being misogynistic is to pretend that your misogyny isn't what it so plainly is. What principle are you invoking here? She's a daughter of a famous man, thus one cannot be bothered to actually look at her qualifications before reflexively bashing her? No such thing as reverse discrimination, there is discrimination period, there is no single way it goes, for there to a "reverse" of it.

In fact, trying to cover up one's actual misogyny when accurately called out on it is indeed what harms the cause of feminism, which is about women being judged on their own accomplishments rather than dismissed as some sort of appendage of a man. That's literally how women are undermined, and the exact reverse of the principle of feminism. If what you're doing is attacking a woman in this manner, this is literally what misogyny is, and you're engaging in it.

Your "criticism" isn't based on anything but your own ignorance and personal bias, own up to what you're doing and why. The facts don't support you here, no matter how hard pretend otherwise.

Among those who engage in this type of undermining of feminism and of women, there seems to be a thread of personal animosity, for what reason I cannot fathom, but to call it just criticism of a woman is simply false.

[JudyM]

68. More of the same, throwing misogyny around every time a woman is criticized.

The DUer you responded to didn't, as you allege, reduce Chelsea to a mere wife or daughter and dismiss her accomplishments. That's your highly sensitized and false assumption. And thanks for your insults about my own feminist positions, tactful and mature befitting the position you're arguing. So according to your thinking, apparently, a woman can never be criticized without it being misogyny... regardless of whether it smacks of anything otherwise suspect ethically. You may call that a more respectable brand of feminism but to me it is opening feminism to the criticism of being overplayed and therefore disempowering it.

[synergie]

69. Nope. Calling out obvious misogyny when it's pretty undeniable what it is.

I did not insult anyone, that's projection on your part. I merely stated that what you did met the definition of misogyny and violated any principle of feminism, in your posts. I said nothing about anything else, that's merely you again, with the insults.

No, actually that's according to you false assertions of what I'm thinking, it's almost like you didn't bother to read what I actually said, instead preferring to reiterate the points you made, which I explained in clear detail were incorrect.

When you choose to criticize a woman for merely being a daughter or wife, utter failing to do your homework, you are engaging in misogyny. That's according to what I'm saying, you need not attempt to divine "my thinking", you're not very good at it.

Stating that you think there are ethical issues while never bringing up any such thing, other than "omg she's a mere appendage of a man and a woman I hate" is not criticism, it's smacks of something suspect ethically of a person making that statement while incorporating less than subtle insults and outright falsehood and fallacies.

What you are doing is the very antithesis of feminism, period. You may choose to call it what you like, but it doesn't change the nature of what it is, and engaging in misogyny and attacking those who call it out for what it is, simply is not ethical.

This labeling of something as "reverse" whatever, as if it's unidirectional and using that "crying wolf' nonsense and badly constructed strawmen to shirk simple definitions, is what's overplayed. What's disempowering is when people refuse to understand their own actions and be honest about what they're caught red handed doing.

It does nothing to actual feminism, just shines the light on those who seek to undermine it by engaging in misogyny. Words have meanings, and just cause you don't like it when the term is correctly applied, it doesn't mean you get to change them.

[LanternWaste]

93. No more and no less than accepting her position on merit is corporatism and cronyism.

"questioning this is misogyny..."
No more and no less than accepting her position on merit is corporatism and cronyism.

Lots of allegation... zero objective evidence to support any one hypothesis. Dismissal of her CV. Trivialization of her abilities. Dismissal of her own ability. Rationalizing that one and only one reason is the cause of her success.

That never happens to women.

[yurbud]

102. she is more qualified than W was to sit on any board, but was likely hired for similar reasons

[synergie]

103. Except she has the resume to make her far more qualified.

[Cha]

55. She's qualified for the job.. your sour grapes are showing.

[George II]

16. Good for her - wish her all the best in her career.

[NurseJackie]

18. This is wonderful news! She's very talented. They're fortunate to have her.

(How weird it is that anyone begrudges her any success or happiness. I don't get it. What has Chelsea done to deserve their scorn an contempt?)

[Edina]

20. It's all in the name

She is a Clinton. She could find a cure for cancer, reverse climate change tomorrow, and invent a new pollution free fuel. It would never be enough. The Left can hate just like the Right and in a way it is worse.

[riversedge]

77. You are spot on!!

[brer cat]

80. I agree, Edina.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of Clinton hate here, most of it irrational. The fact that she is her own person doesn't seem to matter at all.

Welcome to DU!

[betsuni]

87. +1

[Chevy]

23. Emails and speeches. And having a twitter profile etc etc. n/t

[BainsBane]

19. How dare she earn a living

Or rather. How dare she earn money that her detractors believe rightfully belongs to men.

Now siphoning $10 million off campaign contribiputions, that's "progressive." Chelsea's sin is in actually earning money rather than conning it off the gullible.

[KittyWampus]

24. $300,000 a year is more than just "earning a living". That's over a quarter of a million a year.

[BainsBane]

25. How is that a problem?

Does being the child of a former president require someone to take a vow of poverty?

[KittyWampus]

26. LOL! I simply posted that earning over a quarter million a year is more than "earning a living"

From Miriam Webster:

Definition of earn a living

: to earn the money needed for food, clothing, etc. She's just trying to earn a living

Over a quarter million a year is more than just earning money for food, clothing and shelter.

[onetexan]

82. Exactly - as if being well-educated, with

social and political influence all over the world, vice chair of Clinton Foundation, a huge non-profit that has benefited millions the world over - is a liability. It's a problem that she has managed to command a salary of $300k/year. Geez, as if all those years she spent at Stanford, Oxford, Columbia, NYU didn't produce a highly intelligent, poised, well-spoken and determined leader who so happens to be the daughter of one of the world's most successful political couples. Ivanka trump couldn't hold a candle to her. Neither could her know-nothing, perverted, racist daddy.

[brooklynite]

96. Tell me, all: How many people here have served on a Board of Directors?

because I have and do. I'm on a Board of a Private School (in my 10th year). And what you may be missing is that, while a Board IN AGGREGATE runs the institution, but the Board MEMBERS do not. The idea is to bring in people from a variety of backgrounds (legal, financial, policy, marketing, etc.) who can contribute in various ways to the overall running of the entity. Chelsea Clinton is ONE of many Board members; she's not the CEO.

[betsuni]

91. Yes, they must take a vow of poverty.

Democrats should own a few rough cotton garments and a food bowl, that's about it, like Gandhi or Jesus. Been hearing this right-wing attack for decades -- Michael Moore sure got his share of it.

[Sunlei]

90. Even a low level CEO makes 100k a year plus benefits. 300k to work 'managing' Expedia is in line.

Millions a year in salary and bonus, like quite a few bankers make, is excessive.

[SunSeeker]

22. Good for her. We need more progressive women like Chelsea on corporate boards. nt

[Bradical79]

28. I think some aren't aware of her educational and professional background

Her family definitely gives her a leg up, not just in political power, but in experience. Unlike some others with extremely wealthy and powerful parents, she went out and excelled in school and gained a lot of experience in the kind of organization and decision making one should have on the board of directors for a large company. And she didn't need to throw away massive loans from her parents on failed business ventures

I don't know what sort of person she is personally, but she's probably one of the most qualified people on the planet to hold a job like that. If I had a huge travel company, having a woman on the board with her organizational experience, Doctorate in International Relations (I think?), and political connections seems like it would all be extremely valuable. Thinking it's JUST patronage to her family is really selling her short.

[nocalflea]

29. Whatever anyone's opinion of Chelsea and her qualifacations ,

the optics are terrible. She is smart enough to know this.


Looks like she has no intention of ever running for office.

[pnwmom]

30. The optics for any reasonable person is that her PhD in International Relations from Oxford

and her extensive travel experience and work at the Clinton Foundation as well as previous board experience could all contribute to her position on Expedia's board.

[nocalflea]

34. Who ever said the opposition is/was reasonable ?

[pnwmom]

35. That's absolutely not true. Hillary never said that -- and she supported $15 minimum in the platform

This isn't the place to bash Democrats, in case you haven't discovered that by now.

[riversedge]

37. Lesson learned-I hope

[nocalflea]

39. That accusation against Hillary really startled me.

I would love to know who Skeeter's source is.

[Egnever]

42. Google it. It's pretty easy to find

She supports a $12 minimum wage but has said she would sign a $15 one if it landed on her desk.

She thinks $15 is fine for places like New York or la places like Arkansas would do better with $12 in her opinion.

Basically what the poster claimed but the poster was unnecessarily inflamitory with their phrasing.

[nocalflea]

43. Thanks

[pnwmom]

45. You can also google that she supported everything in the Democratic platform including the $15.

That's what she ran on in the general.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/

Raise the minimum wage and strengthen overtime rules. No one working full time should be forced to raise their child in poverty. Hillary believes the minimum wage should be a living wage, and she will work to get to a $15 minimum wage over time, with appropriate variations for regions with a higher cost of living. She’s been a strong supporter of the “Fight for $15,” and she also supports the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.

[Egnever]

47. Oh good lord

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/middle-class-needs-raise-heres-how-hillary-clinton-plans-do-it/

3. Raise the minimum wage.

At $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage isn’t nearly enough to make ends meet. Americans who work 40 hours per week at the minimum wage earn just $15,080 a year—below the poverty threshold for a family of two or more. That’s why Hillary wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour—and why she supports city and state efforts to raise their own minimum wage even higher.

[pnwmom]

49. That was dated in MAY. Why do you insist on pointing to her position in the primary,

even though you know that she was involved in negotiating the Democratic party platform, and she ran on the platform's $15 in the general election?

[Egnever]

51. Because she was not a strong suporter which is what was claimed.

Feel free to post any quote from her strongly supporting $15...

I will be happy to see it.

[nocalflea]

40. And he/she deleted his/her post . Poor Skeeter .

[Egnever]

41. No not really no

She said she would sign it if it landed on her desk but she prefers $12/hr .

[pnwmom]

44. After negotiations, she strongly supported the $15 in the platform and that's how she ran

in the general.

[Egnever]

46. Just like many of her positions

When forced she finally gets there.

Not exactly awe inspiring and still not really an accurate statement. Strongly supported it is a stretch.

[pnwmom]

48. She previously explained that the research had proven that an increase to $12

would not decrease jobs; but there was no research showing that an increase to $15 wouldn't cause job loss in some of the less urban parts of the country. So she had a valid concern, but after helping to negotiate the platform, she campaigned on $15.

Why were you saying she only supported $12?

[Egnever]

50. She says it herself on her website see the link in my reply above

I get you want to support her. I have no issue with that but she was and is by no means a strong supporter of a $15 minimum wage.
just for clarity here it is again on her website to this day...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/middle-class-needs-raise-heres-how-hillary-clinton-plans-do-it/

3. Raise the minimum wage.

At $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage isn’t nearly enough to make ends meet. Americans who work 40 hours per week at the minimum wage earn just $15,080 a year—below the poverty threshold for a family of two or more. That’s why Hillary wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour—and why she supports city and state efforts to raise their own minimum wage even higher.

A strong supporter would have updated that page to reflect her strong support for $15.

[BainsBane]

61. I can't fucking believe you are going on about this

Given what we are facing now. Get a fucking grip and move on.

[nocalflea]

36. Source ? That doesn't sound like Hillary to me .

[not fooled]

71. She will have a happier life

not dealing with vicious pukes by running for office.

I don't know whether she would be a good candidate or not. Just pointing out that for her personal happiness, she will avoid a lot of grief by doing other things.

Not that it's fair--just an unfortunate reality of today's hideous climate created by the pukes. Look what they did to Secretary Clinton.
As long as a significant segment of the Murican electorate remains susceptible to the sh*t dished out by Faux, flush, et al. that's not going to change.

Well, perhaps now that dump's supporters are seeing what he really has in store for them. Secretary Clinton would have been immeasurably better for their lives than the dump cabal. When the dumpsters are no longer conned, we could have elections free of ridiculous fables and malice. Not expecting that to happen any time soon.

[nocalflea]

85. Agree. Chelsea is very politically savvy. I do wish her the best.

[riversedge]

38. Good luck in your new job Chelsea

[Red Mountain]

74. Luck not needed

Success is built in!

It's a feature at the top....or haven't you heard?

[BlueMTexpat]

56. Good for her!

And thanks, TT! You flushed out a couple new enrollees for my Iggy List!

The haters just can't resist.

[pangaia]

76. Hey, I offered to join the board for less than that.... never heard back from them.

Guess I just don't have the pedigree.

[elehhhhna]

79. Crony capitalism

Super qualified obvs. : Techspert, travel maven.


Next up Sacha and Malia on deck at GE ?

/s

[msanthrope]

100. She has a Phd in International Relations from Oxford.

Ran a multi-billion dollar non-profit.

Can you tell us why you think this woman isn't qualified?

[betsuni]

86. Oh dear, the Clinton haters are getting worked up again.

I see things like this here and there in comment sections:

"This is corporate cronyism, Chelsea is a nepotist legacy case bouncing from one patronage job to another. She majored in 'public health' in college -- what's that, cleaning public toilets or something? She's unqualified except to do the bidding of her oligarchy apologists and enrich herself, just like her mother; they are rolling in money together, laughing and lying: my god, the optics. BOYCOTT EXPEDIA!!!1 Chelsea's married to a failed hedge fund, she used to fund hedges herself. OF COURSE she is planning to run for office, she has written a children's book (diabolical!!), the first step in continuing the Third-Way neoliberal establishment corrupt Clinton Machine dynasty."

[xor]

88. HOW DARE SHE DO ANYTHING WITH HER LIFE!!!!

Clearly this is a scandal or something.

[Sunlei]

89. That's a very good position, good job Chelsea Clinton! I like Expedia travel services.

[miyazaki]

92. Could have hired a few people for that amount

Probably would have done more to improve that shit ass site than her alone.

[Blue_Tires]

98. Predictable...

Nice to see the dudebro left has taken a break from normalizing the Trump regime to do what they do best, which is to bash the Clintons incessantly... (See: The Intercept, The Young Turks)

Meanwhile Trump's brats (who were supposed to be separated from government, I remind you) are directly setting foreign policy and making side-deals with governments to benefit the family business... So it would be nice if just this one time we didn't miss the forest for the trees here...

[hughee99]

104. It's their money, they can spend it any way they like...

I do wonder what value she (or frankly any board member) could bring that's worth $300K per year to that company for a "part time" job. I suspect it has more to do with who she knows than what she knows, but really, what difference does it make.