Great news: Chelsea Clinton open to running for office someday

posted at 5:21 pm on April 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

George H.W. vs. Bill was Bush/Clinton I. Jeb vs. Hillary could be Bush/Clinton II. And if we’re very lucky, George P. will win his race for Texas land commissioner and Chelsea will ease into public service with a Senate seat in New York or something and we’ll be on track for Bush/Clinton III circa 2032.

Two points about this. One: It’s proof of how insatiable the media’s appetite for dynastic politics is (especially Democratic dynasties) that this is biggish news today even though she said the same thing six months ago. You get the feeling that Chelsea could go on making rote “maybe someday” statements every year for the next quarter-century and the media will cover every last one with the same “is she finally ready?” tone of breathless inevitability. That’s what it means to be a golden-child scion of the House of Clinton. If you doubt it, remember how insane the coverage was of Caroline Kennedy possibly being appointed to fill Hillary’s vacant Senate seat in 2008. (Hillary’s seat used to be RFK’s seat so Caroline’s appointment would have brought two dynastic storylines together.) Forty-five years after JFK’s death, despite the fact that she had never sought office before, the possibility that America might be gifted with Senator Caroline was the biggest story in politics. Instead, she’s likely to end up as our next ambassador to Japan even though East Asia is the hottest geopolitical spot on the planet right now and she has no diplomatic experience. There’s no job so difficult or delicate that the right pedigree can’t qualify you for it. In fact, the best reminder of that is the interview below: Chelsea normally shies away from TV chitchat but NBC is of course her employer, and was willing to put her on in primetime over reporters who’d spent years working for a shot like that. They wanted access to the Clintons and were willing to give her a “journalism” job to get it. No talent required.

Two: It feels odd claiming that America’s dynastic tendencies are getting worse when two of the first six presidents were father and son, but there’s no way to avoid that feeling given the proliferation of ambitious Bushes and Clintons on top of the endless proliferation of ambitious Kennedys. Is it getting worse, political historians, or is this one of those eternal laments where every generation sees recent deterioration in what’s actually an evergreen problem? (The classic example is hand-wringing about negative ads even though the Founding Fathers were often vicious in their own campaigns.) I can see the arguments both ways. On the one hand, how can dynastic politics be getting worse when Obama defeated the Clinton machine and then surfed on anti-Bush sentiment to become the first black president? On the other hand, what if we end up with Jeb versus Hillary in 2016? And what if Michelle Obama eventually runs for something? You would think, in an age of ubiquitous media, it’d be easier for a candidate to compete with, and defeat, dynasties by building a “brand” quickly. (Again, see Obama.) But maybe Obama’s a singular phenomenon; maybe inescapable media actually makes things easier for dynasties most of the time by providing them with more avenues to reach voters and opportunities to build a brand that’s more complex than what politicians of earlier generations could achieve. (See, e.g., the non-news about Chelsea today. Note too that the executive director of the new pro-Hillary PAC refers to her explicitly as a “brand.”) I’m tempted to say that Ross Douthat was right yesterday that the insularity and incestuousness of America’s elite has also gotten worse, which means an easier path for children of political privilege to navigate the money and relationships needed to grasp power, but I have no number for you on that. Politics has always been a rich/famous man’s game, by and large; whether it’s more of one today than in the last few centuries is impossible to know without a deeper dive into the data.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Maybe congress will establish the Department of the Extreme Makeover. She is qualified to be the secretary.

“It rubs the lotion on its skin…”

NoPain on April 8, 2013 at 10:47 PM

She’s perfect for Democratic politics:

Her father was impeached and disbarred, and her father-in-law is a convicted felon. Onward!!

dpduq on April 8, 2013 at 11:54 PM

At this point, what difference does it make?

tom daschle concerned on April 9, 2013 at 12:38 AM

“asked and answered….”

Somehow I seem to recall that phrase is associated with the Clinton’s. Hmmmm…….

Oh yeah, that’s right! That was the phrase that impeached ex-President Clinton used dozens of times whilst being cross-examined for his attempted rape of Paula Jones.

Hey Chells, yo daddy is a:
suborner to perjury
attempted rapist

And I still say he and al-Gore committed treason by accepting money-laundered bribe money from the Commie Chinese and selling American missile technology to them in return.

Its no coincidence that Chinese CEP Circular Error of Probability ballistic missile accuracy shrank from inaccuracy of more than a mile to only a couple hundred yards in less than a year after the technology sale. And Loral Corp is just as guilty.

CatchAll on April 9, 2013 at 12:49 AM

Long live King George and the rest of the Ruling Class Monarchy.

Bush I, Bush II, Jeb Bush:
Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney:
Bill Clinton , Hilary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton:
Obama and Obama;

What did they give us?
Revolutionary War, War of 1812, First Gulf War, Second Gulf war, Afghanistan, Pakistan., $1.4B annually just for Support of the “New” Royal Family last year alone.

Is there no one else in this country except these 4 ruling royal families?

jpcpt03 on April 9, 2013 at 3:05 AM

Is it because of her long record of accomplishment or that her baby daddy’s a rapist that has Democrats most excited?

MNHawk on April 9, 2013 at 8:19 AM

cross-examined for his attempted rape of Paula Jones.

To be fair Chelsea’s baby daddy just dropped trou and jerked off for Paula Jones. It was Juanita Broaddrick he raped.

MNHawk on April 9, 2013 at 8:21 AM

And silly me for forgetting, she married the boy of a famous Iowa criminal that represented the district I was born in. It’s good to see that a little fraud and prison doesn’t affect your status in the Simian-American Community of Democrat politics.

MNHawk on April 9, 2013 at 8:25 AM

What kind of gobblety gook speak is that? uh, “I’m fixin’ to get ready to think about what I gonna be doing, when the time comes of course”, See I can do that too.

jake49 on April 9, 2013 at 10:09 AM

On the other hand, what if we end up with Jeb versus Hillary in 2016? And what if Michelle Obama eventually runs for something? You would think, in an age of ubiquitous media, it’d be easier for a candidate to compete with, and defeat, dynasties by building a “brand” quickly. (Again, see Obama.)

No, just stick a fork in us and call the grand experiment dead. It’ll be time to go somewhere and get away from the old US of A.

AH_C on April 9, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Great news: Chelsea Clinton open to running for office someday

…but zero squared is still ZERO!!!

…and Chelsea would be hard-pressed to match her mother’s unbroken record of FAILURE in everything she attempted!!!

landlines on April 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM