Could Chelsea Clinton run and win in 2010 Senate race?

[itsrobert]

Take her mom's old seat? She will be of legal age.

[Truth2Tell]

1. Yes. Unfortunately. nt

[Hekate]

2. Has Chelsea shown the slightest interest? That would be a prerequisite. nt

[salguine]

27. Not necessarily...Remember Fred Thompson? He ran for President while clearly uninterested.

[JVS]

3. Do you think that having worked for a hedge fund will damage her reputation?

[exboyfil]

5. That was hilarious during the primary to hear

Hillary bashing Wall Street while her daughter was one of those on Wall Street. In some cases she was at her mother's rallies.

[JVS]

6. What I remember is how people would brag about how responsible she turned out compared to the Bush..

kids, which is true, but when people are rhapsodizing about how she's a winner who got a high-power job one needs to think for a minute. Is this a job in a field where we wouldn't be finger pointing if Bush or McCain's kids were to be working. Since the crash I've heard a lot less about Chelsea's go-getter type job.

[exboyfil]

23. It is also a case of being born on third base and

thinking you hit a triple. Do you really think her resume would have commanded such a job if her parents were not a power couple?

I do not want to criticize Chelsea. She has done very well. I just wanted the emphasize the irony of the situation.

[marshall]

33. Those Bush girls have very low paying jobs

Public health non-profits, Smithsonian museum, UNICEF. It's dilletante work that doesn't contribue money to the society or to their bank accounts.

[BlooInBloo]

4. (facepalm)

[IntravenousDemilo]

7. Honestly, if you guys are so interested in having dynasties...

... why on earth did you even bother getting rid of the Royal Family?

[Chulanowa]

8. Because fantasy is more fun than reality

[MrModerate]

9. My-oh-my. Snark, snark, snark.

Dynasty schmynasty. Does anyone doubt that she's smart as a whip, with experience beyond her years, and been exposed since birth to 1 1/2 of the greatest political minds of the previous generation? One could do worse.

Too bad about that hedge fund thingie.

[IntravenousDemilo]

10. You know, they're talking about Justin Trudeau being groomed for the leadership of the Liberal party

up here in Canada, simply because he's the son of Pierre, and that's bullshit. There seems to be this idea that certain families possess some sort of "royal jelly" they pass on to their kids, as if they're genetically more suitable for high office than everyone else. This is an undemocratic and non-egalitarian way of looking at things, and all it does is foster an overweening sense of entitlement among the rich, powerful, and/or influential. Witness the Bush family. Is there no humility left in the world?

[aquart]

13. Honey, the Da Vinci Code was a best seller.

If people could get all excited over the possibility that Jesus had a kid who survived to have kids, and that there's something special about that...well, why wouldn't they go for this other stuff?

[Oregone]

14. I think some people up here just want a leader that doesn't bore them stiff.

Thats why it seems so many paid attention to Barack, even during the last election. There seems to be little exciting candidates (especially youthful ones with charisma).

People see his father as an exciting historical figure, and project that onto the son. In truth, Justin Trudeau seems to be youthful with charisma, but my first impression of him was that he is incredibly scripted, cheesy, and perhaps narcissistic. I don't know if thats true or not, but that is how he came off to me. But he is, in terms of "exciting", probably hands and shoulders above most in the crowd.

Unfortunately, it also seems to me that Canada thrives in moderation. Why do they need "exciting" candidates (legacy or not)? Why do they need a massively polarized populace and a deafening media that drowns out intellectual discussion? Maybe looking for the glam and glitz isn't the right approach up there? I think they are going just fine as is. If they want the excitement, they should just turn on CNN a few hours a day. I bet they'll be watching CBC again shortly in no time.

[Why Syzygy]

17. "royal jelly"

:rofl:

[MrModerate]

20. I know nothing about the Trudeau situation, but . . .

I'd bet my bottom dollar (meaning the dollar I keep in the bottom of my sock drawer) that it has more to do with connections than divine right. How do the children of movie stars get jobs in The Business when hundreds of thousands (equally or more talented) can't get in the door? How do the nephews of plumbers beat out non-nephews when slots open up in the union?

Families (extended and otherwise) attempt to perpetuate their influence in whatever sphere they operate in. It's human nature and the laws of organizational behavior at the same time. Additionally, growing up in a familial group means you share a lot of the same approaches, techniques, ethos, sometimes brains, worldview, etc., etc. To the extent that such traits are successful for a previous generation, they are likely to be successful for the next as well.

Re: humility. No, not the last time I looked.

[IntravenousDemilo]

34. You make a very strong case in your second paragraph. I just think the idea is icky, though. n/m

[Oregone]

11. "been exposed since birth to 1 1/2 of the greatest political minds of the previous generation"

Unfortunately, just a thought, she may of been exposed to little else. She may be so absolutely out of touched and bubbled from the average American that she wouldn't know where to begin.

Has she ever worked a minimum wage job (has she really ever had to apply for a job)? Has she ever depended upon earnings to pay utilities/rent? Has she ever gone grocery shopping? Does she drive to work or take a subway (does she even have a driver's license?)? Has she ever walked a block in the city on her own, by herself? Has she ever had to choose between going to the doctor or eating healthy that week? Has she ever witnessed, beyond a quick story, the plight of an American worker? Does she understand how people live and feel at the bottom? Has she ever felt that?

Her exposure to politics is not in question. But what of her exposure to life?

[MrModerate]

19. I suspect she hasn't done most of those things.

How many politicians have? They almost all have educational advantages that lead to enough money to avoid actual penury. And lest we forget, life holds many different experiences and no matter where in the wealth or privilege spectrum they sit, they're still "life."

For that matter, I'm just an average middle-class person and I've only done 2/3 of your list.

[karynnj]

31. Same here

and on some - I suspect that she has walked by herself in not just NYC, but in many places.

As to the types of economic distress, there has been NO Presidential candidate in my lifetime who ever did. The three that might come closest are Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt and John Edwards. Bill Clinton started the poorest - a son of a single mom, who left him with his grandparents while she got a nursing degree. But, Clinton was good enough to get scholarships that led to a Georgetown degree, a Rhodes Scholar paid year at Oxford and Yale law school. As an adult he faced none of the economic hardships you speak of - he was either AG or Governor of AK or a law professor married to a corporate lawyer. Dick Gephardt was the son of a milkman, but he went to college and from then on was at least middle class. John Edwards was famously the son of a mill worker, but as soon as he left school - he was a lawyer married to another lawyer - making him at least middle class at what was the beginning of his adult life.

I assume you think living through hardship matters. But, lets consider John Edwards versus Ted Kennedy on issues that affect the poor. Kennedy grew up wealthy and privileged, Edwards didn't. Yet Kennedy led the fight against every one of the bad bankruptcy bills with passion and emotion (The 2005 vote was on March 10 and the debate on amendments was from March 1 until then. For 10 days, Kennedy argued eloquently and passionately to at least make the bill less onerous - and amendment after amendment failed. Here is a link to March 10 th CSPAN video - click on ANY "Kennedy" link and you will see why he is the lion of the Senate. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/69850&date=2005-3-10&hors=s Here is the link to the calendar to get any other day - http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/3&year=2005 You will find that Kennedy had all the empathy needed to understand the impact.

In 2001, Edwards was faced by a similar bill. His father's experiences and the experiences that Elizabeth Edwards had to have seen as a lawyer whose specially was bankruptcy did not cause him to join Kennedy in fighting that bill. It did not even stop him from voting for it. Bill Clinton did more to cut the safety net than repair or add to it.

Kennedy is not unique. RFK had the same values. FDR created the whole concept of a safety net, which LBJ expanded. Kerry has fought and won funding for youthbuild, a successful program for in every budget - I think since he became a Senator. (He worked with underprivileged kids even as a prosecutor.)

This is not to say that every privileged person will be compassionate or that every poorer person worse on this. I selected people who go against the implied logic in your post - picking the first exceptions I could think of. The point is you need to look at the choices the candidate has made in life and make your choice based on that.

[Why Syzygy]

38. Wouldn't Carter go on your list as well? nt

[karynnj]

39. Yes, he should have been- but again, one he graduated School

and completed time in the NAVY - like the others, he was middle class or better. And, like Edwards and Clinton, he was less committed than Kennedy to creating security net programs while in office - since then he has done great work with Habitats for Humanity.

[Lost in CT]

26. Couldn't agree more. She is uniquely unqualified.

I think Prince Harry would make about as good a senator from NY.

[karynnj]

28. 1 1/2 ????? of the greatest political minds

I would disagree with that number - which I don't really understand. Bill and Hillary Clinton lost a nomination where she had incredible party support and media support - remember the constant talk of inevitable. Their political strategies took the advantage she had and threw it away. Even 1992 is no proof of great political acumen.

Consider these three things:
1) Bill Clinton is undeniably charismatic
2) It was a Democratic year - Bush was below 40% in early 1992 and the most effective third party candidate in decades was constantly bashing Bush and ignoring Clinton.
3) The media was sick of Bush and charmed (at that point) by Clinton.

With even average political strategy, those factors would lead to a very easy, smooth ride to victory. Yet they made it "interesting". Then look at BILL's actions in HRC's campaign. Do you seriously think that bringing back the Bosnia story as it was dying and explaining it as HRC being old and tired was astute politically. What Clinton was was incredibly lucky.

Not to mention, it is beyond ironic to have Clinton supporters suggesting this after the way they attacked Caroline Kennedy. Now, she grew up with JFK, RFK and Ted Kennedy - who between them have more political savvy than all the Clintons combined - and it did not make her a politician. At least from the primaries, Chelsea Clinton is very shy, soft spoken, extremely pretty. From her academic career she is very smart - but that does not make her a politician. (In fact, her choice of job implies she has no interest in politics. The Clintons have money. If she were inclined to politics, she would likely have picked a job related to a cause she was interested in.

[MrModerate]

37. Hillary lost because Obama's political mind is the equal of Bill's . . .

And his 21st century campaign's low error rate and ability to learn from rather than repeat mistakes left all other campaigns in the dust (see McCain, John). Clinton didn't squander her inevitability -- Obama overcame it largely through his own efforts. Plus, Clinton & Clinton collectively made more errors and didn't recover as quickly.

Doesn't alter my assessment of their quality.

I have no idea whether Clinton Mark II is any kind of a politician. I was more responding to the cries of "dynasty," which seemed to me as prejudicial as rejecting someone you haven't evaluated because they happen to be black or of the "wrong" gender. Bush was a terrible president not because he was George HW Bush's son (although, with that mother . . . ) but because he's a terrible person.

[Spouting Horn]

36. Would Chelsea be

a viable candidate if it wasn't for her Dad (and mom)?

[SoCalDem]

12. Good Grief!

It's way past time to stop this "royal transfer" of senatorial/congressional/presidential positions.

We have almost 300 MILLION people in the country, and each state has millions of people ...Surely there are more people interested/eligible/qualified to run for these seats..

I don't care if they are a dem or a rep, it's time to start getting smart about this, and time to stop looking no further than the pedigree/marriage license..

[hlthe2b]

15. NO

No relevant experience. Never held public office. Very young. Even "legacy" politics would require her to have done something in the public eye for a few successive years.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

16. Hedge Fund Chelsea?

no, thanks.

[Why Syzygy]

18. One word.

Caroline Kennedy. (I lied)

[FLAprogressive]

21. for serious? Weren't you all the same people complaining about "dynasty politics"???

HRC was a "dynasty senator" and Chelsea Clinton would be also......

[vanderBeth]

22. Christ, no. How about a politician?

[dysfunctional press]

24. yes and no.

she could run, and couldn't win.

[mod mom]

25. Why-because she's devoted her life to others as an INVESTMENT BANKER?

Did you forget the "sarcasm" notation?

[ThomWV]

29. I sure hope not.

Not that I've got a thing in the world against that wonderful young lady. What I hope is that parental name recognition isn't enough to get anyone elected. Its worked to the disadvantage of the nation far too many times already.

[jmg257]

30. With the idiots in this state? She probably could. But let's hope not.

[Stevenmarc]

32. Maybe they can have Chelsea run against the Bush's "little brown one"

[closeupready]

35. I don't know how anyone can honestly answer yes or no. Has she ever run for anything?

I'm sure she's a nice person, but will she sell out organized labor as Bill did? If she's going to run on the Clinton record, then that will be a question I want to see answered. And since she's a hedge fund employee, there is almost no question in my mind that she WOULD continue selling out organized labor.