The 1%

Chelsea Clinton to NBC:

NBC announced Monday that it has hired Chelsea Clinton to become a full-time special correspondent for NBC News.

Now I 'm thinking Hillary Clinton is definitely hanging up the political spurs. This looks bad, and not just for Hillary.

I don't know Chelsea Clinton, but I always understood her image to be something better than this Russertism. Guess I was wrong.

Speaking for me only

< NBAPA Disclaims, Files Antitrust Suit Against NBA | Herman Cain's Brain Misfires Over Libya Question >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A more honest living... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    than working for the Avenue Capital Group...but thats not saying much is it:)

    call me jaded but (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    I am not that appalled by this.  only marginally.  I actually did not think Hillary would run again and as for Chelsea, its a good living, she may be able to contribute to the discourse in a positive way.  whats the big deal?

    I agree, why the opposition? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    This is much ado about nada, IMO. After all, we passed the point of being shocked at nepotism along time ago. And it's not like she's becoming the Nightly News anchor or the NBC State Dept. correspondent. No, Mrs. Greenspan will, inexplicably, get to keep her job. Besides, we've seen quite a few politicians' relatives in the anchor AND reporter chair while those politicians were still in office... Maria Schriver, Chris Cuomo... Any outrage about Chelsea doing the "Making a Difference" segment while HRC is at State seems like overreach to me. Besides, I have no doubt she'll produce some really good pieces. As for whether it actually convinces me to start watching the horrid NBC News with Brian W. again, hmm...that is not at all a sure thing.

    I don't give a sh*t... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    a young journalist who's been slaving in the file room at NBC news waiting for their big break might be p*ssed.

    But it's not what ya know but who ya know...whaddya gonna do. No sense tilting at windmills, it's the way of the world.

    And not just in the ruling classes either...broked*cks get jobs thanks to family & friends connections all the time.


    well ok (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:14:46 PM EST
    to plays devils advocate if the point is to have people who have insight into how this $hit works from the inside its hard to think of a better candidate.

    Getting naive in retirement (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    old pal?

    Maybe her first report will be an expose on how the Avenue Capital Group grift really works...lol.


    perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:26:12 PM EST
    I have been away.  but honestly from what I know of her I welcome her to the discourse.

    Major media discourse... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:29:58 PM EST
    has nowhere to go but up.  At least I hope it has reached the bottom...now I'm sounding naive:)

    You've obviously missed the high level of discourse on TL as much as we've missed you!


    Wonder why she no longer works there. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    back at ya (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:04:44 PM EST
    see open

    Might be p*ssed?? (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:25:00 PM EST
    Come now dear kdog. I promise you that there are at least 10 who are sizzled beyond belief that magically someone's daughter is entering at the top and has never had to cover the police beat in a flyover town while writing obits about the dead mother of Farmer Jones who was renowned for her Angel Food Cake and strawberry jam.....

    Do you think that Chelsea will have any empathy for the 99% or any understanding of what the problems are???

    And no matter what she could/would say otherwise, the answer is not only No, but Hell No!

    But she is not the disease. But merely the latest known symptom.


    I hear ya Jimbo... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:26:27 AM EST
    meritocracry is as elusive as utopia...human beings being human beings makes it impossible.

    But to be fair its not just the 1%, people from all walks of life call in favors or use connections to get jobs, the 1% just get much higher paying ones.  And so it goes...:)


    Yeah (none / 0) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    and the same goes for Jenna Bush.

    NBC's news division now has "balance." (snark)


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    Most of us knew a long time ago that Hillary had hung up the political spurs.  If Democrats win the White House this time, they are NOT going to win in 2016 so it would be crazy for her to hold out hope that she even has a chance...

    Still many political options. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:21:28 PM EST
    Well, she could just be getting distance between her and Obama. A SoS can leave for 4 years and then run, taking co-credit for everything good and denying ownership of everything bad. And she could run for some other federal office -- although NY already has a Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators so there'd have to be a shift there somehow (Cuomo for president in 2016?). And, of course, though it's not as political there's always a SCOTUS nomination (I'm not entirely sure Hillary would want to deal with the confirmation process, though).

    But I don't agree that this is a sign Hillary is "hanging up her political spurs", though. If only because 2016 is over 4 years away and I don't necessarily expect Chelsea to be at NBC for 4 years. Frankly, I'm surprised at this move mostly because I figured she'd have much better things to do with her time than the described role.


    But if Obama loses in 2012 (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:23:27 AM EST
    then Hillary could run and win in 2016.

     So, Obama should lose now so Hillary can win later.


    'Odd' position coming from you . . . (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:57:45 AM EST
    and total bullsh*t in regards to a response to a comment that wasn't in that vein. Why can't y'all give up the Hillary ghost? She's done and has said as much. The only folks that don't seem to really get it are O campers . . . is that all ya got?

    I would like to see Hillary run in 2016 (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:09:25 AM EST
    and have said so.

    It is not I who cannot give up the ghost.....

    And that ghost appears routinely here in the refereces to old Primary arguments.....raised sometimes obliquely by former Hillary supporters...

    It is very difficult here to have a discussion about Hillary without it devolving into hostility.


    So you want Obama to lose? (none / 0) (#107)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:00:23 AM EST
    Obama winning would give her a better (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    chance in 2016 if you look at historical examples.

    I do think many here want Obama to lose as part of a win by losing strategy.


    Historically, (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    the precedent would actually favor her winning in 2016 if Obama is re-elected.

    A third term happens more often than not.

    Truman, Bush I and Gore (who undsiputedly had more votes.)

    A two term President shows the country has basically accepted the governance of one party at that level.  A challenger would have to overcome that presumption.....

    And candidates matter......

    The only exception to a two term President not being followed by someone in his own party in recent history is JFK beating Nixon (again assuming Gore actually won.) And it was razor thin close in 1960......And JFK was very good.

    Can Hillary beat Jeb Bush in 2016?  I think it is possible.....

    Of course, precedent may or may not hold any actual sway......but it is not adverse to Hillary....  


    Actually (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:18:32 PM EST
    that is not true. How many times has a party held the presidency for more than two terms? In the 20th century it has only happened twice and one of those was FDR.

    Out of how many two term Presidents? (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    Yes, twice it happened:

    Truman, as I indicated; and Bush I, as I indicated.  I would also count Gore, as I indicated.

    How many two term Presidents were not followed by a third term of someone in the same party?

    Just once:  Ike/Nixon  (again not counting Gore.)

    So, three out of the four were followed by a President of the same party.  Or, if you don't count Gore, it is 2 out of four, or 50%.  And the 1960 and 2000 elections were very, very close....

    Another way to look at it is how many times has the party of a defeated incumbent reclaimed the Whitehouse the next cycle?  First, how many defeated incumbents do we have?   LBJ/Humphrey in 1968.  Carter in 1980.  And Bush I in 1992.  The defeated party did not reclaim the Presidency in any of those instances.  O for 3. (You could count Ford as a counter example, but that is a very odd case--he was never elected and Watergate and Nixon's resignation is sui generis.  If you do count Ford, then it would be 1 for 4-still not good odds, just 25%.)

    So, the win by losing scenario loved by many here has no historical precedent in modern times.  Doesn't mean it won't happen, but just no precedent for it.

    Going by the above, a Democrat is much more likely to be elected in 2016 if Obama wins in 2012. (At least 50% chance if Obama is re-elected v. at most 25% if Obama is defeated.)

    The logic behind this is that if the country elects a President for two terms it has decided that they prefer that that party hold the Presidency.....If, on the other hand, it defeats the incumbent, they won't go back to that party any time soon.

    Again, just going by history.  


    Forgot Shrub (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    So it would be 3 for 5....How you count Gore is the key.

    Brave soul. "Li'l Luke," according (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    to Digby, voices his opinions on the issues and political goings on of the day.  Doesn't sound like this is the role Ms. Clinton seeks or will have.

    Didn't know she was studying at Oxford.  Her new bus thinks this will be a full time gig for now.  

    I read she is signing on as a producer (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:54:48 PM EST
    on Brian Williams' new evening show. Not appearing in front of the camera (yet).

    Still, Russertism was indeed the first thought I had.

    NBC sure seems to have a penchant for nepotism. They hired McCain's daughter too.


    And don't forget (none / 0) (#118)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:02:40 PM EST
    Jenna Bush

    please see Luke (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    EYE-rack comment in the open

    Or Bobby Kennedy (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    Not outraged in the least (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    The hiring of those from famous families has become SOP at the networks and on cable news.  And if NBC has already hired two offspring from the GOP I want at least one big name from our side.

    And it's not like she's starting out as WH correspondant -- this is a very small and narrow slot reporting on positive news in the features segment.  Something that doesn't require a lot of training or even a fancy degree in journalism.  And the people supposedly passed over working elsewhere down the food chain know or should know these types of hires are to be expected in a business that heavily emphasizes ratings and insider access.  Chelsea delivers both.  Good for her.

    As for political hopes for Hillary it's long past time to move on from that shopworn notion.  

    She's not on MY side. (none / 0) (#70)
    by observed on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    She's the daughter of a plutocrat, the spouse of a plutocrat, and she doesn't have the self-respect to get a job on her own qualifications.
    If she's better than Mika Brzezinski, who at least isn't the daughter of someone famous, I'll be surprised.

    I wasn't aware there was a (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    specific and demanding set of qualifications necessary to land a job reporting on citizens volunteer work.  Looks to me like her varied and extensive work and educational background combined with her unusual personal experiences and superlative personal qualities like intelligence and ability to clearly communicate might qualify her for a decent job in a field that obviously could use more people of her substantive caliber.

    And citing potted plant Mika (though she's slightly more assertive these days) is a pretty low and insulting bar.  Chelsea doesn't strike me as the passive sidekick type -- though in her defense I think Mka might have badly needed the gig just to stay afloat.  One nice thing about being a "plutocrat" is that you are often in a position not to have to accept the kind of dubious job Mika has.


    Mika's father ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:14:16 PM EST
    ... is Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter.

    Hmm.. does humor have to be (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by observed on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:59:11 PM EST
    wet and sloppy like a big dog's kiss to get noticed around here?

    Get a job on her own qualifications? (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:25:39 PM EST
    But she did. And she's leading by example. To be a 1%'er you have to BE a 1%'er, by acting like a 1%'er.

    If all of the 99%'ers would just start using their connections then they too would all be 1%ers.

    Then everybody who wasn't too lazy to pull on their own bootstraps would be a 1%'er, and there wouldn't be this enormous smelly 99'%er problem all over the country, and everybody would be job creators instead of consumers and the unemployment rate would be down to 1% or less.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    Apparently, yes.  That's why the snark tag was invented.   ;-)

    Look. Her name is Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    That alone qualifies her to tell people what their opinions are, no? ;-)

    Almost as qualified as someone named Coulter? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    Or Franken? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    Perfect example. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    Of course, the sad Hillary hater upthread probably thinks Franken was more qualified to run for Senate than a lawyer who worked for the Watergate investigative committee...

    You really think that being a lawyer (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:56:27 PM EST
    who worked for the Watergate committee 30 or so years ago is a qualification to run for the US Senate??

    You're joking. Right?


    You really think that people (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:03:51 PM EST
    are unaware of the breadth of her experience, including her stint as a lawyer on arguably one of the most important congressional investigative committees in all of American history???

    Hey, Jim, you're joking, right?  


    For what? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:49:06 PM EST
    6 months??? 12???

    Of course she was also a great commodities trader.



    Yep (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    There is really nothing that makes on 'qualified' to tell other what to think. Getting someone to sponsor you is all it takes.

    Really (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    could care less about this. Is she really qualified to do this? Not really but Obama showed that qualifications no longer matter so I guess this is the "new Reality".

    Well (1.80 / 5) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    Many of these comments are right,  Chelsea doesn't have much experience in this field.

    Now if she'd MARRIED a person who became a journalist, she'd be completely qualified to enter the field of journalism herself.

    That's waaaaay different.

    [giving my best smirk]

    Wait. (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:56:54 PM EST
    Is this a slap at Hillary Clinton? She was being recruited and groomed for political office in DC before she ever went to Little Rock. She's was as qualified on political, governing, and law-making bases as many previous successful Senatorial candidates when she ran for NY Senator. You're WAY off base here if you're taking a potshot at Hillary Clinton. If you aren't, nevermind.

    He thinks HRC's only experience (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    when running for POTUS was being married to Pres Clinton . . . .

    His words, not mine.


    Her being First Lady was touted (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:55:19 AM EST
    as significant experience.

    She only had four more years in the Senate than Obama.  As to time in elective office, Obama had more.

    Hillary's advantage as to experience really boiled down to her time as First Lady.


    Wow. 'Nice' way to reduce her work (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:06:28 AM EST
    before she was FL, during and after. And the fact that she was 6yrs into the Sen, where as O had much less before he started campaigning. Might want to check a NYT article about the very Freshman Senator and his feeling about being one early on in his DC 'career'. May want to also do a bit of checking as to what he actually DID as Sen. And how many seats at the table he had v Hillary.



    No, what I said was completetly true (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    Hillary relied extensively duirng her campaign on her experience as First Lady.

    That was what really different between her and Obama on the experience front.

    If you look at expereince outside the Senate and Hillary being First Lady, she and Obama were comparable, with Obama's experience in the State Legislature giving him the nod.

    And, I did not disparage her role as First Lady....

    Her four more years in the Senate does not seem that great a differecne:  8 years v. 4 years for Obama.  And, Hillary had been laying the foundation for running for President for quite some time.

    Without her being First Lady, Hillary was not all that experienced.  Especially when compared to Dodd, Biden and Richardson.  An obvious point one would think.  

    Yet, I get this "pathetic" rejoinder.....which is well, you know....



    There ya go again . . . . :) (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:39:29 AM EST
    Hillary's advantage as to experience really boiled down to her time as First Lady.

    I actually compared their resumes. Obama's was paper thin, in comparison, as to what each had done up to the point of running. (Dodd, Biden and Richardson are a non issue since we aren't comparing either to them.) It was the lack of concrete, job related accomplishments that stood out for me. . . His wife seemed to be the more accomplished of the two ;)


    I wasn't taking a potshot at her (none / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:18:14 PM EST
    I was more aiming at those (who may or may not be here) who have differing standards of experience depending on whether they like the candidate.

    My take: experience is overrated generally.


    That's a bald-faced lie (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    You were absolutely taking a pot shot at her, something that was crystal clear to those who called you out on it.

    But wait, are you wearing your feminist hat today?

    Just checking.


    shoephone (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:11:58 PM EST
    I do have my feminist hat on as always.  And the idea that any criticism of a woman is sexist sets it spinning.

    Again, experience is overrated for me.  Hillary was qualified to be President and so was Obama.

    My only issue was people who tried to thread the needle and argue that Hillary was a veterans with experience far beyond Obama's, which was incorrect.  In fact, I think if you asked those same folks whether Obama or Hillary had better experience to be POTUS, they'd probably say Hillary despite the fact that O's been POTUS for 3 years.  Just how it goes I guess.

    Anyway, the worst thing about the '08 election was the labeling of progressive attacks on Obama as racist and any criticism of Hillary (even by fellow progressives) was sexist.

    Bad memories coming back.


    You're comment history says (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    otherwise . . . .

    Again, experience is overrated for me.  Hillary was qualified to be President and so was Obama.

    This comment is a waste of space (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:56:32 PM EST
    Try and backtrack all you want. You are totally unconvincing.

    Heh - of COURSE it is (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:29:02 PM EST
    My take: experience is overrated generally.

    Someone else disagrees with you.

    You know, I am a believer in ... in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. Uh, and I think that if I were seriously to consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there may be some people who are comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people.

    4 years later (none / 0) (#60)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:14:23 PM EST
    He was ready.

    I think he's done a good job so that all worked out.  Thanks for reminding us that for a smart and pragmatic person, all you need is a few years.

    Preciate it.!


    YOU think?!?! Heh ... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:54:29 PM EST
    Of course you do.  He// - Fred Barnes still claims GWB was a great President.

    In the real world, Obama's at 43% approval, after starting with a near-historic high of 68% - 8 points behind Bush at the same point in his first term.



    Reminds me of ... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by cymro on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 10:08:23 PM EST
    "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie".

    You just can't ignore reality. Well, you can, I guess, but you lose your credibility in the process. As you are doing with comments about Obama "doing a good job".

    Are you by chance one of the 1%?


    How much experience do you need to (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:18:54 PM EST
    report a story about people making a difference in their communities?

    Which is what Chelsea's niche will be, and - oh, by the way, it will kind of dovetail nicely with the work she's doing for the Clinton Foundation.

    I'm wondering when it will occur to people to stop smirking at their own little jokes, and start asking why, more and more these days, it seems like individuals - of the ordinary, 99%-type - are pulling together what slim resources they have to help people who have even less.  As far as I'm concerned, the more light that gets shed on the growing need in this country for basics like food, shelter and clothing, the harder it will be for the 1% to ignore.

    Chelsea, by the way, will be donating most of what she earns from the NBC job to Georgetown University Hospital and the Clinton Foundation.


    George Washington University Hospital (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    will be the beneficiary--in memory of her grandmother and in recognition of the care given to her.

    There are plenty (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    in the 1% doing the same.

    I don't think it is fair to pretend that the rich are a monolith of evil while the 99% are a purest of the pure.

    It seems to me that overall people are generally helping each other out more.


    I don't know anyone (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    who is pretending that except those are deliberately mischaracterizing.
    I don't think it is fair to pretend that the rich are a monolith of evil while the 99% are a purest of the pure.

    SJ (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:33:12 PM EST
    "it seems like individuals - of the ordinary, 99%-type - are pulling together what slim resources they have to help people who have even less."

    That's where I got it from. The assumption there being that the 1% isn't doing more to help others.  I have no issue with saying broadly that the 99% are paying X while the 1% aren't paying what they should, for example.  

    But using broad brushes to paint the 99% as morally superior to the 1% is a bit unfair.


    If that's where you got it from (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    you have a serious problem with reading comprehension and logical thinking.  Not the first time that observation has been made, though.

    Once again you've made your own assumptions and cast them magically upon someone else.


    sj (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:19:58 PM EST
    I am not quite sure what your deal is, but you are trying very hard to pick apart even the most innocent comment.  That's cool. I am happy to serve that function.

    But the bit about reading comprehension is something I could easily say about you.  There are plenty of times that you have completely distorted my words.  Nothing more to say really.  I grow tired of the comments devolving into me defending myself from that kind of attack instead of the issues, so I'll just ignore from now on.  

    Feel free to engage me on the substance though.


    Heh, Dave, how's it going? (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:31:30 AM EST
    I'm not pretending the 1% are a monolith (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    of evil, ABG, and I certainly never said there were no 1%-ers making their contributions to the growing problem of need in this country.  But then, I don't have to say anything because you are always right there to put words in my mouth.

    Have you ever watched the Making a Difference segment on NBC's nightly news broadcast?  If you did, you would know that it typically features someone of average, and even of less-than-average means, sometimes even a child, who sees a need in their community, and then goes about doing what he or she can to address it.  The ones I see don't usually feature Lord or Lady Bountiful bestowing a big check on a community program, but people like the woman in a small southern town who remembered what it was like to go hungry as a child, and when she heard there would be no lunch program for children in need when school was not in session, somehow managed to pull together a program to make sure those kids had at least one good meal a day.  

    I suspect, though I could be wrong, that these are the kinds of contributions Chelsea Clinton will be featuring - people whose efforts didn't come with the stroke of a pen on a check.

    I am reminded every day, via the proliferation of half-page and full-page ads in my newspaper from Bank of America, Wells Fargo and so on, that the 1%-ers make significant contributions to the local community, but I've come to think of it as cheap and easy PR, designed to paint - white-wash? - these monoliths as paragons of good will and good works.  Not that their contributions don't help people - they do - but these are not the kinds of contributions being featured on NBC's broadcast.

    But I freely admit that every time I see a B of A ad, and think about all the people who got screwed over, I want to throw up.

    At a time when state, local and federal governments are cutting services right and left, at a time when the need for services is just increasing, I think it needs to be shown how those cuts affect ordinary people.

    And I believe Chelsea Clinton sees that, too.

    The more visible people in need are, the harder it will be to ignore them.


    Anne (none / 0) (#61)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    1. I am sorry if you were not saying what I implied.  I hate when people put words in my mouth as well.

    2. I have not watched that show but I am interested in seeing what Chelsea can do.  I genuinely like Chelsea. What's not to like?

    She'd probably need to beef ... (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:11:27 PM EST
    ... up the resume a bit.  Maybe a couple years as a community organizer and a few more as a state legislator.

    Something like that would qualify anyone to do pretty much anything ...



    LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    Perhaps she coudld serve on the board (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Rojas on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:46:34 PM EST
    at Walmart, when she wasn't pimping dirty chickens...

    "Pimping dirty chickens"? - heh (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:31:24 PM EST
    CDSers and humor ... not a good mix.  Besides, Michelle had the Walmart angle covered years ago.  Oh, look!  She's back at it!

    ... and they're not even from Arkansas ...



    Maybe so, as Rezko is a goner for now. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:56:14 PM EST
    you are a troll (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    your comment here is proof, if any is still needed

    I love it, ABG (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:30:02 PM EST
    That's the best slap back I've read in a year!

    I told you (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 09:55:59 PM EST
    the two of you should have a cocktail together.

    Hillary Clinton held a national (none / 0) (#95)
    by observed on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:20:20 AM EST
    job in the REAGAN cabinet before her husband was even elected governor of Arkansas. Reportedly, she did a fanstastic job, and managed to stave off budget cuts.

    But look, any time you want to show off exactly how informed you are, please feel free.
    I'm feeling like the proverbial FWS right now, I tell you... I oughta...


    I think you are mistaken, observed. (none / 0) (#96)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:27:03 AM EST
    Bill was first elected governor in the late '70s. And Hillary joined the Rose Law firm in he '70s. Reagan took office in January, 1981. I can't find anywhere that documents a position in the Reagan administration.

    I agree that Hillary has amassed a huge body of experience over the many decades she has worked in public service. I just don't think any of that was in service to Reagan.


    Are you thinking of Hillary's work (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:33:25 AM EST
    with the Legal Services Commission? She was appointed to the commission by Jimmy Carter.

    The Carter era
    In December 1977, President Jimmy Carter nominated Hillary Rodham to the board of directors of the LSC,[8] for a term to expire in July 1980.[8] Rodham, an attorney with Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas and the wife of Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton, had a background in children's law and policy and had worked in providing legal services for the poor while at Yale Law School. She had also done 1976 campaign coordination work for Carter in Indiana.[9][10] This was a recess appointment, so Rodham took her place on the board without immediate Senate confirmation. Rodham was nominated again in January 1978 as a regular appointment.[11] In mid-1978, the Carter administration chose the thirty-year-old Rodham to became chair of the board, the first woman to become so.[4] The position entailed her traveling monthly from Arkansas to Washington, D.C. for two-day meetings.[4]
    During Rodham's Senate confirmation hearings, she subscribed to the philosophy that LSC should seek to reform laws and regulations that it viewed as "unresponsive to the needs of the poor."[12] Rodham was successful in getting increases in Congressional funding for LSC, stressing its usual role in providing low-income people with attorneys to assist them in commonplace legal issues and framed its funding as being neither a liberal nor a conservative cause.[13] By her third year on the LSC board, Rodham had gotten the LSC budget tripled.[14] Opposition to LSC during this time came from both Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who favored a "judicare" approach of compensating private lawyers for work done for the poor,[14] and Conservative Caucus head Howard Phillips, who objected to LSC representing gays.[14]
    LSC funding was at its highest-ever mark, in inflation adjusted dollars, in fiscal 1980,[10][15] with a budget of $303 million.[16] Some 6,200 poverty lawyers filed suits using its funds on behalf of 1.5 million eligible poor clients;[17] the lawyers won almost 80 percent of their cases, which mostly involved divorces, evictions, repossessions, and interrupted payments from federal agencies.[17] For fiscal 1981 it was budgeted at $321 million.[18]
    In June 1980, Carter renominated Rodham for another term on the board, to expire in July 1983.[19] Sometime between about April 1980[20] and September 1980,[21] F. William McCalpin replaced her as chair of the board. He would remain chair through late 1981.[

    As you can see from the above, she was a very successful commission chair.


    Of course, that's exactly what I meant, and (none / 0) (#99)
    by observed on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:34:53 AM EST
    fits my description, except for the minor error about when she started. Right?

    Yeah, we're taking about the same (none / 0) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:39:28 AM EST
    thing. I sometimes get hung up on details. So, with that in mind, let me note that the LSC chair is not a cabinet position. That said, it does appear that part of her term on the commission board, although not as chair, overlapped with the beginning of Reagan's term.

    And we both agree that Hillary was quite successful while serving LSC.


    Right, I should have said (none / 0) (#102)
    by observed on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:03:31 AM EST

    Oh, I thought BC was first elected in the (none / 0) (#98)
    by observed on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:34:00 AM EST
    1980s. But it turns out I was correct anyway.
    She was named to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation by Carter in 1977.
    She continued in that job under Reagan for a time.
    She became chair of the board in 1978. Under her tenure, the budget for the group increased to a record amount (in inflation adjusted dollars, even compared to now).
    She was replaced as chair by Reagan, but did remain, fighting to keep funding from being cut entirely.

    Just a small correction. :-) (none / 0) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:36:06 AM EST
    She was replaced in Sept. 1980. Carter was still president.

    Master of understatement & diplomacy, casey (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:52:13 PM EST
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:45:57 PM EST

    Perhaps the 0.1% would be more accurate.

    Hey it's not who you know! (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:53:39 PM EST


    ask (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    Luke Russert

    You forgot (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Makarov on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    Cokie Roberts.

    I'm sure there are many, many more.


    Oh there are. There are many more. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 06:12:58 PM EST
    And I just love the way Donald jumped in, and after telling us (again) some important (to him) aspect of his life (he actually met Chelsea Clinton). (wow and golly gee.....)

    He made a point.... (I guess) that nepotism is an equal opportunity occurrence.

    And I agree!

    Though how he knew about all those FNC people I don't know since I thought he never watched anything not from the NBC brand.



    And, your point, Jim? (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    The way I read Donald--and a number of others on this topic--is that it is ok if a scion of a politician/celeb/etc. has an opportunity to do some work in an area in which their background & skills may well be suited and that it is quite common to see that. Additionally, a few asked something like "why the hoopla" and others noted her unique background.

    Now, as for your comment: What is the point...other than a type of snide?


    I confess (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 10:01:11 PM EST
    After enduring more than a few of Donald's snides I couldn't resist.

    But if you think Chelsea has a better background than (likely) more than a 1000 other available applicants......well, there you go again.


    It is about the free market, Jim (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:43:39 AM EST
    What qualififcations are salient?

    Someone who will bring ratings?

    How many people can do that?

    Assuuming that Chelsea will have a following may be right or wrong but probably worth a shot.....


    How can you have a free market (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    if the product offered... the journalist in this case.... is not selected from a free market?

    The Chelsea thing is like a veggie market buying veggies from only one farmer.  Your selection is limited to what that farmer grew.


    There are numerous other people (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:41:55 PM EST
    they could have hired.

    They hired her based on their business judgment.....that she would help their bottom line more than others....

    Republicnas typically like this free market stuff.


    Cokie Roberts (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:39:13 AM EST
    Apologist for Guatemalan Death sqauds because her brother's lobbying firm represented the Guatemalan gov't & military.....

    Chris Wallace (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:08:04 AM EST
    Just for the record, the guy absolutely paid his dues and worked his way up.  He surely got some breaks along the way (most likely more for his stepfather's influence than his father's), but he certainly didn't leap into a major television slot as a total greenhorn the way some others memorably have.

    I don't know his whole history, but he started very memorably at the Harvard College radio station, broadcasting long hours of live coverage of the turmoil there in the late '60s.  After he graduated, he was hired at a beginning reporter slot by the Boston Globe.  Etc.


    It must be because of (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    her distinguishing herself with her long years journalism experience.

    In the trenches.

    Besides, she'd never make president (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:05:24 PM EST
    Her father was never CIA director, was he?

    at least he (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:15:24 PM EST
    was not Kenyan

    Have you seen Ms. Clinton's "real" (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:18:36 PM EST
    birth certificate?

    Hope she has a thick skin. (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:27:49 PM EST

    I would say that if she did not (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    she would not have made it this far.  how many young girls have to deal with Rush Limbaugh talking about how homely they are?

    No arguments, just sayin'... (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    Some people seem to be making note (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:52:54 PM EST
    of the fact that she isn't avaliable for interviews/questions/what have your regarding her hiring...

    'Guessing tha "some people" may (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    correlate with those who never liked anything much that any Clinton ever did or would do. Same old whine.

    Maybe so, all I know is when you google (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    Chelsea Clinton about every other article points out that she's a reporter, now, but won't take other reporter's questions...

    I would say (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by sj on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:30:01 PM EST
    that makes her a smart reporter.  Taking questions would just lengthen the amount of time spent making it about her instead of her work.

    Another example of the power elite (none / 0) (#41)
    by Madeline on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 04:09:55 PM EST
    Seriously. Not about their politics or their ideology. It's about how they take care of each other and preach to the rest of us.

    I voted for Hillary Clinton. Not such a fan anymore of the girl who was always for the people but who refuses to be a voice in the present. She's certainly exuberant for the women of the world but somehow excludes those in the US. Yeah.I know she works for the president.

    Same for Jenna Bush. Now on the Today Show.

    I am disgusted with them all.

    Hmmm. Diarist threw out the red meat. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 11:57:21 PM EST
    Rest is quite predictable.  

    An oldie but a goodie (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46:24 AM EST
    Fullback up the middle for three yards and a cloud of dust....

    Yes. It looks a lot like (none / 0) (#94)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:00:10 AM EST
    going for ratings on a slow news day.