Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

The Media’s Pathetic Cheers For Chelsea Clinton

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Liz

The Media’s Pathetic Cheers For Chelsea Clinton

 

New York Post

By Michelle Malkin

April 19, 2017 | 7:15pm

 

Excerpt:

 

How thirsty does Variety look begging readers to join it in doing high V cheerleading moves for Chelsea Clinton?

 

Thirstier than an ultra-marathoner lost in Death Valley in mid-July.

 

Hyping the entertainment magazine’s latest cover, Co-Editor-in-Chief Claudia Eller gushed this week, “How cool does Chelsea Clinton look on our Power of Women, NY, cover?”

 

Welcome to the liberal media’s manufacturing of “cool.” Leather jacket? Check. Overzealous airbrushing? Check. Humanizing grin? Check. Democratic establishment pedigree? Checkity-check-check.

 

This is just the latest attempt by The Media Resistance to make Chelsea Clinton a thing. The same liberal lunatics in the press who rage about the Trump children’s nepotistic privileges champion the ‘‘refreshingly outspoken’‘ daughter of the Clinton dynasty — who, at 37 years old, will receive a “Lifetime Impact” award from Variety on Friday for her “humanitarian work.”

 

The honor comes during the same week that the Clinton Global Initiative cash machine officially shut down. Among the generous “humanitarian” projects of CGI’s parent, the Clinton Foundation: accused of using its resources for Chelsea’s wedding to another heir of Democratic corruptocrats, Marc Mezvinsky — the newly jobless former hedge-fund manager and son of convicted fraudster Edward Mezvinsky, a former Democratic congressman from Iowa.

 

Remember: The Clintons’ own inner circle lambasted Chelsea’s hubby for exploiting the Clinton Foundation and CGI to prop up his now-defunct hedge fund. The duo also siphoned off charitable donations to pay for “taxes on money from her parents” and expenses racked up to subsidize her “life for a decade,” according to longtime Clinton aide Doug Band.

 

But I digress from the Cult of Chelsea Coolness. Shake those pompoms, propaganda media:

 

The New York Times lauded “Chelsea Clinton, Unbound,” applauded her “confrontational tweeting” against President Trump and interviewed her about books for a series featuring successful authors — after her most recent ghostwritten opus on global health care flopped like those famous Filipino divers on YouTube.

 

BuzzFeed and The Hill cover Chelsea as if she were a Kardashian. Politico also cooed over Chelsea’s new “spicy, sarcastic online personality” on Twitter.

 

*snip*

 

Full Commentary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liz

Even Vanity Fair is sick of her.

 

Please, God, Stop Chelsea Clinton From Whatever She Is Doing

 

The last thing the left needs is the third iteration of a failed political dynasty.

 

Vanity Fair

by T.A. Frank

April 21, 2017 11:00 am

 

Excerpt:

 

Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods. In The New York Times alone, Chelsea has starred in multiple features over the past few months: for her tweeting (it’s become “feisty”), for her upcoming book (to be titled She Persisted), and her reading habits (she says she has an “embarrassingly large” collection of books on her Kindle). With Chelsea’s 2015 book, It’s Your World, now out in paperback, the puff pieces in other outlets—Elle, People, etc.—are too numerous to count.

 

One wishes to calm these publications: You can stop this now. Haven’t you heard that the great Kong is no more? Nevertheless, they’ve persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases, the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats. So let’s review: How did Chelsea become such a threat?

 

Perhaps the best way to start is by revisiting some of Chelsea’s major post-2008 forays into the public eye. Starting in 2012, she began to allow glossy magazines to profile her, and she picked up speed in the years that followed. The results were all friendly in aim, and yet the picture that kept emerging from the growing pile of Chelsea quotations was that of a person accustomed to courtiers nodding their heads raptly. Here are Chelsea’s thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: “I’m a big believer in listening to my body’s cravings.” On her time in the “fiercely meritocratic” workplace of Wall Street: “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.” On her precocity: “They told me that my father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the newspaper.” Take that, Click, Clack, Moo.

 

Chelsea, people were quietly starting to observe, had a tendency to talk a lot, and at length, not least about Chelsea. But you couldn’t interrupt, not even if you’re on TV at NBC, where she was earning $600,000 a year at the time. “When you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish,” Jay Kernis, one of Clinton’s segment producers at NBC, told Vogue. “She’s not used to being interrupted that way.”

 

Sounds perfect for a dating profile: I speak at length, and you really need to let me finish. I’m not used to interruptions.

 

What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping.

 

*snip*

 

Lots More Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

The eyes are the window to the soul...

 

hn2moenk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco
1433097c6dbbb165dd5fa1adeaea22ad9c167d2ce0fb5173.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

Let's em cheer her on. She is a political dolt. Nothing will come of her gaining political power.

 

However, her parents will try and drive up her brand so they can milk it for cash.

Edited by erp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

Btw, if the media would have done thier job, they would have found the proof that she is Webb Hubbles kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond369

Politics aside, should we really be making fun of her looks? That sounds like something the left would do to Ivanka Trump, or worse. Oh wait, they did that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Btw, if the media would have done thier job, they would have found the proof that she is Webb Hubbles kid.

Even if it is true, how would this information be of any use to anyone?

 

Politics aside, should we really be making fun of her looks? That sounds like something the left would do to Ivanka Trump, or worse. Oh wait, they did that before.

 

They (and I don't just mean RN) have been making fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks since she was 12 years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

Even if it is true, how would this information be of any use to anyone?

 

It could have spared us the Clintons. So a lot of use could have come from it.

 

And just look at her. It is true, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LongKnife

They (and I don't just mean RN) have been making fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks since she was 12 years old.

If she intends to be a player, maybe it's better that she is used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

1433097c6dbbb165dd5fa1adeaea22ad9c167d2ce0fb5173.jpg

 

 

 

:biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ASE

I didn't take it as making fun of her looks; I thought it was to indicate they were both jackasses.

 

But looks/jackasses aside... what on Earth qualifies Chelsea to be in charge of anything at all? What has she done? (of course the same was asked of her mother, and the result was that really nothing qualified her, and they still ran her for POTUS)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BARman29

I didn't take it as making fun of her looks; I thought it was to indicate they were both jackasses.

 

But looks/jackasses aside... what on Earth qualifies Chelsea to be in charge of anything at all? What has she done? (of course the same was asked of her mother, and the result was that really nothing qualified her, and they still ran her for POTUS)

The same was asked of Obama, and he as much said his only "executive experience" was running his presidential campaign! So that lemonade stand of Chelsea's counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

If she intends to be a player, maybe it's better that she is used to it.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it's petty, sexist, and plain stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

That doesn't change the fact that it's petty, sexist, and plain stupid.

Is it sexist just because she is a female?

 

What would it be if she were a male?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

Is it sexist just because she is a female?

 

What would it be if she were a male?

 

If she were a male no one would have given a crap what the face looks like (unless it was especially hideous). She has never tried to be a model or beauty contestant, so why is her lack of delicate features such a source of fascination?

Girls are constantly under scrutiny to fit into some cookie cutter ideal of what she should be, and God forbid if you don't fit in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

If she were a male no one would have given a crap what the face looks like (unless it was especially hideous). She has never tried to be a model or beauty contestant, so why is her lack of delicate features such a source of fascination?

Girls are constantly under scrutiny to fit into some cookie cutter ideal of what she should be, and God forbid if you don't fit in.

I don't know, I can think of plenty of examples of W's photos being compared to chimps, or Obama for that matter, or Tim Kaine to the Joker or the Grinch, or Trump to an Oompa Loompa, etc. While it may be petty and childish (as are the ridiculous names people come up with for politicians), it is hardly sexist or unusual from either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

If she were a male no one would have given a crap what the face looks like (unless it was especially hideous). She has never tried to be a model or beauty contestant, so why is her lack of delicate features such a source of fascination?

Girls are constantly under scrutiny to fit into some cookie cutter ideal of what she should be, and God forbid if you don't fit in.

So, is it sexist if done to a male? That was the question.

 

And as M-T pointed out that men's looks have been lampooned, as well, it happens to men.

 

So if it is not sexist when done to a man, then how is it when done to a woman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

I don't know, I can think of plenty of examples of W's photos being compared to chimps, or Obama for that matter, or Tim Kaine to the Joker or the Grinch, or Trump to an Oompa Loompa, etc. While it may be petty and childish (as are the ridiculous names people come up with for politicians), it is hardly sexist or unusual from either side.

They're presidents, not someone's wife or kid. You honestly believe men are under the same scrutiny about their physical appearance as women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection

That doesn't change the fact that it's petty, sexist, and plain stupid.

 

Your comment reminds me of a comment made by one of our Supreme Court Justices, Sonia Sotomayor:

 

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

They're presidents, not someone's wife or kid. You honestly believe men are under the same scrutiny about their physical appearance as women?

First, Trump's mockery started before he was elected, plus they're all public figures as she is. She wants to be known for her public statements, the books she's written, her social media presence, and her apparently long life of political activism. There are plenty of male public figures who are also not presidents who've had their appearance mocked. Go to FR and start browsing and you'll see all kinds of mockery of Michael Moore and Ted Cruz's appearances. Go to DU and you'll see all kinds of mockery the appearances of Rush Limbaugh and nearly every man working at Fox News.

 

This sort of mockery is common. You may not like it (I don't), but it is ridiculous to claim that it only happens to liberal female non-presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird

First, Trump's mockery started before he was elected, plus they're all public figures as she is. She wants to be known for her public statements, the books she's written, her social media presence, and her apparently long life of political activism. There are plenty of male public figures who are also not presidents who've had their appearance mocked. Go to FR and start browsing and you'll see all kinds of mockery of Michael Moore and Ted Cruz's appearances. Go to DU and you'll see all kinds of mockery the appearances of Rush Limbaugh and nearly every man working at Fox News.

 

This sort of mockery is common. You may not like it (I don't), but it is ridiculous to claim that it only happens to liberal female non-presidents.

I never claimed that. I'm saying the superficial judgements by political partisans and the media of physical appearance happens more with women, no matter what their political stripes. I'm no Clinton fan but criticizing this womans' facial features, even when she was a child, is disgusting and has nothing to do with her qualifications (or lack thereof) to run whatever it is she is running.

And yes it is sexist.

Edited by Ladybird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liz

Our entire society is plastic and superficial. That would have to change (and I'm not holding my breath) before you see any improvement here.

 

I also believe that Chelsea's coming in for her share of mockery, physical and otherwise, because it's obvious that she's being pushed to enter politics to substitute for her mother's failures despite her own manifest lack of qualifications or aptitude. Many people resent this unprepossessing daughter of the Clinton dynasty and heartily wish they would all disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SARGE

Our entire society is plastic and superficial. That would have to change (and I'm not holding my breath) before you see any improvement here.

 

I also believe that Chelsea's coming in for her share of mockery, physical and otherwise, because it's obvious that she's being pushed to enter politics to substitute for her mother's failures despite her own manifest lack of qualifications or aptitude. Many people resent this unprepossessing daughter of the Clinton dynasty and heartily wish they would all disappear.

 

 

:thumbsup:

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Dave

1433097c6dbbb165dd5fa1adeaea22ad9c167d2ce0fb5173.jpg

Dang it! Coffee everywhere! :biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...