Re:Chelsea Clinton: Did peoples' spin-detectors suddenly short out?

[JHB]

Who read the article about Chelsea Clinton? No, not the NY Daily News article that's spawned at least two threads in GD and probably more elsewhere?

I mean the other one, the Fast Company article that the Daily News piece cherry-picked from and spun.

Because in that article, the line about "not caring about money" was in the context of not being obsessed with nothing but money . Of not being another "grab everything and squeeze" type like Mitt Romney or the Kochs.

Even the bit about "I just work harder..." is in the context of overcoming the assumption that she's a well-connected do-nothing getting a ride on family connections, a la a certain scion of the Bush clan who loses fights with pretzels. It's not an example of Mitt-wit self- back-patting.

Really, don't people click through to sources when there's some obvious spin going on? Especially from an article from a tabloid newspaper?

I'm hardly a fan of the Clintons and the neoliberal economics their policies have been steeped in, but Jeez, people, use your heads. The Daily News piece may not be the Soviet-grade quote-extraction that the isolating of "You didn't build that" was, but it bears a strong family resemblance.

[OKNancy]

1. to answer your question: no, people don't check sources

and often they will comment on the headline only or the snippet included.
Many don't bother to go to the link and read the entire article.

[arthritisR_US]

61. I think you are right, sad but true. nt

[djean111]

2. I think the real problem is that many many voters - not DUers - will only see the spin.

Most of the criticism I have seen at DU is about the Clintons serving up sound bytes that can be spun.
Obvious spin is taken at face value by a lot of voters. All the remonstration in the world cannot change that - best to just try not to serve up anything that can be spun. Like that remark of Romney's. He never should have said anything like that in the first place. Or Ann saying "you people". Zipping her lip would have worked a lot better.

[SidDithers]

3. It's what DUers do...

The hair-on-fire brigade must feed their need for perpetual outrage. And sometimes, distorted spin from the NY Daily News is the only thing available to sate their voracious appetite.

Sid

[JoePhilly]

9. They are attacking the Obama kids in a separate thread.

Part of the left has circled around and joined hands with the craziest part of the right wing.

[cali]

15. oh no they're not. but good job misrepresenting that thread and OP

my initial post in that thread is an attack? what a load of lying shit it would be to say so. Surely you aren't doing that.

[JoePhilly]

19. Feeling defensive are you?

Did I mention your first post in that thread, or any of your posts specifically?

Or are you just feeling a little guilty?

[A Simple Game]

37. How about a link? n/t

[cali]

38. not at all, dear. I used my post because it's representative of the tone of the

vast majority of the other posts in that thread. Do try to employ a smidgeon of honesty, hon.

[JoePhilly]

74. I like the phony use of terms of endearment

Used to mask the rage about how easy the kids of a US President will have it in life.

[cali]

79. oh for pity's sake

I have no problem whatsoever with people having money and frankly I think that growing up in the public eye would be a nightmare.

and sorry, dear, but I come from the 1%. quite a few generations, actually. Grew up in New Canaan Ct- on an estate (though my parents would never have called it that). Private schools, prep school, etc. I have the dubious distinction of having been rich and poor and now OK financially. But that experience, which I daresay is not too common, has given me a perspective I value.

[JoePhilly]

86. ... and?

Everyone has their own experience that they value.

I was a poor kid, now I'm not. So what?

Most parents want their kids to learn about what it means to work and have a job fairly early in life. Its good that the President wants that for his kids.

Well ... it should be a good thing, but of course its not. Obama hates the poor and working people, his kids are props. Blah blah blah.

He makes a simple statement about having his girls learn what it means to work, and DU's perpetually disgruntled get all worked up.

Seeing it shouldn't have been all that surprising.

[cali]

87. and so, I feel qualified to speak on being both privileged and poor.

in other words I know what it's like to grow up in the 1%. I'm sure your experience as a poor kid gives you a perspective too, but it's different from mine. I admire President Obama and the First Lady for wanting their kids to understand their privilege and get that other people have a vastly different experience. I have never said anything remotely like the shit you're making up.

You tried to say that I said something I didn't. You do that a lot. It's dog poop. and nothing but that stinking substance.

[arthritisR_US]

63. This place is not nearly as bad as the new forum. You mates are tame and

a breath of fresh air, seriously!

[Bonobo]

4. Sorry, but fail. We are all adults with life experience enough to recognize that

when someone worth millions says something like:

"I tried hard to care about money but couldn't do it"

then we have enough sense to know what their thought process looks like -and their privilege.

So, no. You can make us "unheard" what she said. And no, it wasn't the spin. I didn't READ any spin. Just the actual quote. So unless the quote was inaccurate, you are wrong.

[Metric System]

5. Basically it's all about perception. You already have a negative view of the Clintons, so you assume

the worst.

[Bonobo]

11. The reverse is equally true.

You are predisposed to not believing what seems clear to me, that Chelsea is a privileged person, not fully aware of that privilege and not fully cognizant of the real hardships that most people face.

[betsuni]

14. "Not fully cognizant of the real hardships that most people face"

Present your evidence.

[Bonobo]

18. I love when people say that.

It's so ridiculous to demand evidence of an opinion.

意見だけだからなんで証拠がいるわけ？

というかそういうな事は証拠があるわけないやろ？

[Ed Suspicious]

21. I know. It's silly.

[betsuni]

30. I knew you were going to do that!

I'm not Japanese. You know this, yet you can't help the foreign guy in Japan more-Japanese-than-thou Japanese fluency competition. You one of those Japologism.com dudes? Post a lot on Japan Today? And you didn't say you think Chelsea is a clueless privileged person, you said she is. Okay then, saying something makes it true. How about Caroline Kennedy? She bad too because rich?

[Bonobo]

40. You got a real inferiority complex.

I thought you spoke Japanese. Sue me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. I think you missed the point of that response ...

Let me help you out ... It is offensive when Non-Mexicans add an "O" to Anglo/English terms; it is offensive when white people usurp African-American terms, when speaking to African-Americans or speaking on African-American issues.

That is not a sign of an "inferiority complex."

[Bonobo]

55. I have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

That analogy makes zero sense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Okay. eom.

[Scarsdale]

49. Jenna Bush

What is her salary from the Today show? No qualifications, yet CAN get her grandfather to make appearances, so is very valuable. Meghan McCain also appears as a "political consultant" just because of her parents wealth. Chelsea is the most highly educated of the entire group, yet she is picked apart. Her parents are both super intelligent, something which can not be said about Bushes and McCains.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Is it really ridiculous to ask for the information that informs one's opinion? eom.

[Bonobo]

47. information is not evidence. Come on... nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Sure it is ...

1ev·i·dence noun \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\

: something which shows that something else exists or is true

: a visible sign of something

: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

Full Definition of EVIDENCE


1

a : an outward sign : indication

b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter ...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

[Bonobo]

62. No. Evidence may be a type of information, but

information is not a type of evidence.

You should probably stick to subjects you're good at.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. Okay ...

But I did/do make a living doing things like distinguishing between terms, Oh Really, Really Smart One.

[JDPriestly]

36. The evidence is the words this controversy is about.

[JDPriestly]

35. No. It's about Chelsea's words and the huge difference between what rich people

enjoy and most working kids of today can't -- like a modicum of financial security and being able to have kids, a steady job, maybe buy a house.

It's about the extreme economic inequality in our society.

Compare that to Elizabeth Warren's campaign to lower interest rates on student loans. Elizabeth Warren knows which way the wind is blowing. She studied bankruptcy and understands the frustrations of today's young people who work just as hard as Chelsea but will be paying back college debt for a long time. Most young American college graduates today do not have the liberty of not caring about money. Most of them are indentured by their student loans.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

10. Context...

"It is frustrating, because who wants to grow up and follow their parents?" admits Chelsea. "I've tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn't. That wasn't the metric of success that I wanted in my life. I've talked about this to my friends who are doctors and whose parents are doctors, or who are lawyers and their parents are lawyers. It's a funny thing to realize I feel called to this work both as a daughter--proudly as a daughter--and also as someone who believes that I have contributions to make."

[betsuni]

12. THANK YOU!

What is so difficult about reading a whole quote and looking at something objectively? I don't get it.

[The Green Manalishi]

20. Some of the most miserable people I know

Are kids who grew up rich.

As with all human beings, some of them are good folks, some are worthless assholes. But all of them fundamentally, have a different perception about the value of money. IF mom and dad are wealthy it is totally normal to have "other metrics"; if you've never came even near to missing a meal or not having a place to live it would be totally phony to pretend like you DO understand that world.

If dad and mom had more than enough money, what is the point in having as a goal to be richer and more financially successful than they are? Are there not other criteria by which to measure one's success?

Sure, there are exceptions, kids who renounce everything to serve the poor... but they are pretty rare.

[Scarsdale]

52. Tucker Carlson

There is a prime example of a rich do-nothing, who has had everything handed to him. On his own without his parents; wealth (just like W) he would be flipping burgers. That is supposing he could pass the test for employment!

[BeyondGeography]

13. She's talking from eight miles high

In that context, the quote is understandable, but still shaky. Don't force me to tell you what she makes from NBC for not much work, where she lives, who she's married to, what she stands to inherit one day. The problem, her problem, is she didn't see around the obvious corners that this little rhetorical excursion included. On top of "dead broke," it's reasonable to hope that the Clinton's have learned a little something about not winging it when it comes to their wealth.

[JDPriestly]

33. That is the first time I have seen her words.

And I find it understandable that people are upset about what she said.

She says she tried to care about things that were very different from her parents then claims she just couldn't care about money?

So she is saying with that that her parents care about money, that money is their metric of success?

No wonder people are criticizing her statement. Her mother is running for president most likely, and Chelsea states indirectly that her parents are concerned about money at some fundamental level. Ughhh! There is something pretty troubling about it.

It's like saying, well my parents care mostly about money and judge people by their financial success, but I'm not like that. Of course she isn't like that, she has always had money and never had to worry that much about it.

Chelsea's statement is very insensitive. It seems like she is bragging that she doesn't have to worry about money. And the truth is she doesn't. The Clintons have been putting their feet in their mouth about money recently. Don't blame the readers. The problem is in those words in black and white.

[surrealAmerican]

53. That's not what I got from it at all.

It sounds to me like she was saying that, to be different from her parents, she tried to make money her goal, and has since reconsidered.

It's fairly obvious that her parents measure their success by winning elections, not building bank accounts.

[Skittles]

96. but she has the CHOICE to not care about money

most of us HAVE to care about money, just to LIVE - no one subsidized our bills or our education

[cali]

39. lots of people want to grow up to emulate their parents.

and why was she trying hard to be so different- in her late twenties? Most kids do that in their teens.

[bettyellen]

77. your suggesting she should have gotten a job with a hedge fund as a teenager? HA

Yeah, that would be a typical teenage rebellion thing, LOL. Makes so much sense now- thanks.

[cali]

78. uh no, and of course I said nothing remotely like that, dear bettyellen.

dishonesty, it's so cute on you.

[bettyellen]

80. well you suggested her money chasing rebellion should have happened as a teen- so what exactly was

your point? Please do tell.

[cali]

84. no I did not. gad. reading comprehension.

try it. please.

I suggested that the type of rebellion she describes is more often a phenomena of the teens/early twenties. To be very specific, just for those who have trouble grasping basic simple stuff: I am suggesting that rebellion against one's parents is more a function of growing up than of adulthood.

[bettyellen]

85. oh, it's an over simplistic generalization used to imply she is lying about her reasons for choosing

her career path? Or is it just a nice way of saying she's a late bloomer?

Not sure what exactly you're suggesting- but unless you actually clarify your expectations of CC..... it appears to be a cheap shot and you didn't think it out too well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. The interesting thing (to me) is ...

no one seems to have picked up the obvious, and more politically incendiary, inference of Chelsea's statement. To say:

It is frustrating, because who wants to grow up and follow their parents?" admits Chelsea. I've tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn't.

in an attempt to explain how one has attempted to distinguish one's self (from one's parents), would mean that one's parents DID "care about (money) on some fundamental level" and DID see money as a/the "metric of success."

But I guess one would have to have actually read the article in order to piece up on this; rather than, pounce on the first outrage point contained in the title (or first paragraph) of the article.

[TheKentuckian]

88. A lot easier is just to say a career in finance just wasn't a good fit.

No offense likely, no one is going to glean a rich person saying she doesn't care about money or get a visceral reaction to said rich person being removed from such cares or feel we have someone absurdly interested in politics but not caring about economics which is impossible.

These folks have handlers and should and must do better to be effective.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

89. Notice money in ()

it means she said "it" (or similar pronoun). What was the question asked?

[TheKentuckian]

92. That would change the context zero percent

Money and it would be referring to the exact same thing so the distinction is without functional difference which causes me to miss the point of raising the distinction at all.

[JHB]

25. Actually, your quote IS inaccurate...

"It is frustrating, because who wants to grow up and follow their parents?" admits Chelsea. "I've tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn't. That wasn't the metric of success that I wanted in my life. I've talked about this to my friends who are doctors and whose parents are doctors, or who are lawyers and their parents are lawyers. It's a funny thing to realize I feel called to this work both as a daughter--proudly as a daughter--and also as someone who believes that I have contributions to make."

Note also the parentheses around "money". They signify that she didn't use that word in the interview, it's replacing something like "it" to give some context to the quote. It would be interesting to see the question she was responding to, in case there's some additional nuance that's not coming across in the text. There's a video with the article, but I haven't viewed it.

It was bags and bags of spin to pull those particular lines and rewrite the context.

[Bonobo]

26. It's the same.

Take this quote:

"I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn't. "

I find that quote to be obnoxiously self-aggrandizing and tone deaf coming from a wealthy wealthy person.

OF COURSE you to don't care about money! Like a fish doesn't care about water! She's SWIMMING IN IT.

The problem is when a fish says that to a person dying of thirst.

[Chathamization]

31. So I suppose if you asked someone that quit being a chef why they quit and they said

"I've tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about (food) on some fundamental level, and I couldn't. That wasn't the metric of success that I wanted in my life." It’d be offensive to everyone suffering from hunger?

[JHB]

32. Followed by "That wasn't the metric of success I wanted..."

Yep, she's up in the economic stratosphere and will never have to worry about keeping a roof overhead, food on the table, medical care, and any other matter of basic security.

But frankly, when she's answering a question about how she measures success, I'm not going to get my nose too far out of joint at a rich kid who doesn't make it their life's goal to add as many additional zeros to their offshore accounts by whatever means necessary.

My nose will probably be jointier about her Goldman-Sachs-alumni husband, though.

[betsuni]

6. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

Stupid hateful comments by people who didn't read the original article and attacked like rapid dogs caused me to feel sick. Makes me really wonder. Why not just go over to right-wing sites and join the hate orgy over there?

[TBF]

7. I had a thought this morning while posting in another thread -

I wonder if there's any consideration of tightening up DU with moderators during the coming election season (2014-16), now that Discussionist is out there (for folks who just really want to argue and use whatever sources they want etc).

Not just the crazy sources (Natural News is the one that gets me going ... along with the Tabloid type Daily News sorts of publications) ... but also the fact that many on juries will let posts stand if they are polite no matter how many right-wing arguments they spew. Smart trolls have figured out that the way to stay on this board is to be polite, but spewing all those RW points daily does make DU suck. And very much keeps it from being the progressive place it used to be imo.

[JDPriestly]

28. You mean sort of like censoring things to repeat one's own version of the Democratic Party line.

Who gets to decide what is or is not a right-wing argument? That's the trouble with censorship. Who gets to be the censor. You and I might agree on 99% of political issues. But there might be 1% on which we disagree. At that point do you censor me or do i censor you. It's quite difficult.

DU is about sharing information and opinion. It's a site for Democrats, but not necessarily only for mainstream Democrats. So we have a wide range of opinions on things.

The Clintons are not the Holy Family. They are not royalty -- not yet. If people want to criticize them even unfairly, let it be. It is healthy in a democracy for people to be suspicious of the powerful, especially of powerful families like the Bushes and the Clintons. Very healthy.

I don't want to have a royal family. Horrors! No one is too high and mighty to be criticized or misunderstood or satirized. That's democracy. That's free speech. Hey! We also make fun of Wolf Blitzer and some of the other TV repeaters. It's what makes us a free people.

As Truman is quoted as saying (whether he did or not): If it's too hot, get out of the kitchen.

In other words, if you don't have some humility and a sense of humor about yourself, if you can't take the satire and unfairness, get out of politics.

[4Q2u2]

45. The Article Does

The Writer in the Article does Call her Royalty. That is very disturbing to a lot of people. She maybe Great or Tone Deaf but her last name does not and should not equate to anointment.

[TBF]

83. No that's not what I meant -

but obviously you had something you wanted to say ...

[Bobbie Jo]

8. It's been broken since at least 2009.

This is not a new phenomenon.

That goes without even mentioning the resident 'true believer' conspiracy theorists.

[Chathamization]

16. Yeah, reminds me of the “Gore said he invented the internet” lie.

This is like pointing out that wasn’t true, and having people start to yell about Gore voting to confirm Scalia. There’s a difference between criticizing Democrats for not being progressive enough and parroting right-wing propaganda. Pretty huge difference, actually.

[mainer]

17. This is true about almost every subject

Readers jump to quick opinions without actually reading the entire article. I see that again and again.

[greatauntoftriplets]

22. Context is everything.

[Beacool]

23. The only thing they read was the word "Clinton" and off they went.

Typical DU reaction. The Clintons are treated here as poorly as on any RW site. The overreactions are very similar, the only difference is the politics.

[gollygee]

24. Yeah that article didn't seem very fairly written

It sounded to me like she was saying that, while she is very wealthy, she isn't ambitious as far as accumulating more wealth goes.

And the second part was in the context of people's expectations. It sounded like she meant that if people think she got her job because of who she was, she'd have to work harder than anyone else and prove she has a good work ethic.

You have to work a bit to pick a piece out of each and make it sound like she's just a spoiled rich girl, but obviously it can be done.

[JDPriestly]

27. Marie Antoinette did not say "Let them eat cake" either.

People believe what fits their experience. In a society in which the rich are getting much, much richer and the rest of the people are asked to do with less and less, people tend to believe that those with power or access to power are greedy and insensitive to the needs and accomplishments of others.

It's only just beginning. That is why those who are powerful and doing well need to wake up and show more concern for economic justice and less for their own bank accounts.

If your parents were able to buy a house or at least pay the rent on only one income, and it takes you two, either a spouse or a roommate to rent a smaller, less comfortable apartment, if your parents graduated from college with very little debt and you graduate with a lot of it, and then you see that the child of politically powerful people seems to have things pretty easy, you are going to ask a lot of questions about what is going. The Clintons know this very well. Bill Clinton in particular was not raised in a wealthy family. And Hillary's family was not all that wealthy.

In recent years, the Clintons and a lot of people at the top of the Democratic Party have not demonstrated the compassion and zeal for economic justice that needed to be shown in our post-2008-recession period.

Some college grads out there are doing well, especially those who graduated at the top of their class and those who have political or social connections. But a lot of the young people who graduated in recent years are still living at home, paying off student loans or working jobs that don't really require college educations. Something is wrong. So if Chelsea Clinton, one of the lucky ones, says something just a bit snooty sounding, of course, all the friends and family of graduates who are having a tough time are going to feel a bit uneasy, maybe angry.

Let's don't forget this is the core problem right now. The WWII generation went to school on the GI bill or to publicly subsidized colleges and bought houses on the VA housing program. The WWII generation taxed the rich and built superhighways. The Reagan and post=Reagan generations lowered taxes and make everyone, rich or poor pay the same inflated prices for what their parents got free. The families of today have to pay a toll for things their parents took for granted. Chelsea Clinton is symbolic of a social problem that needs to be talked about and dealt with.

[Whisp]

44. Today's version of that from the clueless wealthy is 'Let them eat fake'. n/t

[cheapdate]

29. A person's values aren't dictated by how much money they have.

Being rich or being poor doesn't dictate how a person values money. There are both rich and poor people with a healthy perspective toward money, and there are both rich and poor people with an unhealthy perspective on money. I know this is true because I've seen it first hand.

There are some people here claiming that poor people all share some particular, monolithic perspective toward money. That's utterly false and a very poor generalization.

All poor people aren't alike and all rich people aren't alike.

I'm really tired of hearing that white people can't talk about race relations, rich people can't talk about poverty or inequality, etc. The civil rights movement would have never succeeded as it did in today's climate. Martin Luther King would've been attacked as sell out for consorting with the enemy and white people who participated in the movement would've been attacked as guilt-ridden, insincere, hypocrites.

[cali]

43. I have NEVER met a poor person who didn't have huge anxiety about money

if you want to call huge anxiety "healthy", feel free. It is not. There are commonalities that those who have to worry about a roof over their head or their next meal or even whether a medical issue will bankrupt them, share.

This isn't about "rich people not being able to talk about poverty". It's about rich people saying clueless fucking shit.

I was brought up in the 1% and lived that life for my first 40 odd years. Recently I've been poor. I think I know whereof I speak.

[cheapdate]

66. Well, I have met poor people whose values were centered around things other than money.

I've met poor people whose values were focused on values such as hard work, integrity, charity, compassion, etc.

We weren't rich and neither was I raised in abject poverty. I went to public schools in Mobile, Alabama. My mother was a social worker for the state, and my father was a sometimes business owner, sometimes gambler, sometimes construction worker.

I've known "hippies" who rejected money on considered grounds. I've known house cleaners and custodians who kept their poor homes spotlessly clean, volunteered with their church, and raised their families with good values. I've known bums and drunks who simply didn't care about money at all, except in the most mundane and practical sense.

Everyone has to have money in this world. That's an inescapable fact. But being poor doesn't dictate how a person assigns value to money in a deeper sense of how they look at the meaning of life.

Your experience is obviously different.

[cali]

68. I am an old hippie. commune ties still there.

that has nothing to do with the type of poverty that isn't chosen.

YOU really are clueless. You can be poor and have great values of course. That doesn't mean that you don't worry about money. Jaysus. I don't even know what to say to someone like you.

If you're worried about your kid getting enough to eat, you better fucking believe you're worried about money.

in disgust,

Eva

[cheapdate]

70. Screw you, too.

[cali]

72. not what I said, but oh well. I expect nothing more from someone who claims

that not all poor people worry about money and goes off on silly flights of fancy.

cheapdate. there's a name that has nothing to do with money, honey.

[Marrah_G]

50. Actually, they are

You can google it. There have been studies done.

here is one article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/20/research-finds-wealth-warps-your-perspective-and-makes-you-less-ethical/

[cali]

69. thanks, Marrah. that claim is so ridiculous and maddening.

[cheapdate]

73. That's not the proper understanding of social science research.

Social science research uncovers trends and tendencies. A finding that children from broken homes tend to have poorer grades than children from stable homes doesn't in any way tell you what a particular individual may or may not achieve. It's an aggregate tendency in a population.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. when it comes to the clintons, some people's brains turn off completely (in both directions)

they can either do no wrong (which is really maybe the opinion of 2 people on DU) or anything they do is treason/horrifying/darthvader like (there are probably around a 100 regular posters, who feel this way)

[tammywammy]

67. +1 n/t

[JaneyVee]

41. I used to think it was only rightwingers who hated

Nuance and context, surprised by the soundbite loving crowd here.

[Iliyah]

54. Yep and now all the corporate media spin is on HC's money

and "now" coupled with Joe B. Tearing down HC even on the DU, I guess RWers think they are winning the war on messaging just like 2012. Not - LOL

[packman]

42. $600,000 a year

nice starting salary. I'm sure if Chelsea and another girl, let's call her Mary Jane Smith, walked in and got accepted as employees at NBC they would both get paid that salary. Then, again, there is the reality of what is, is.

[Marrah_G]

48. Yup

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. I will point this out, since you seem not to get it,

not caring about money (the way you and I do) is actually pretty common among people who are very well off. I am sorry, but if you live in an apartment worth ten million, with two kitchens... and your starting salary is $600,000, and you happen to be the daughter of a former POTUS, you really have a very different attitude about money. Your struggles will also be very different as well.

You might not go into those circles, but people in those circles truly do not care about money. They do not have to worry about whether to pay the electric bill, or buy meds, or get shoes. You might also not understand this, but there is quite a bit of resentment towards these folks, and she said words that will byte her. She should keep away from media or learn how speak to media, one or the other.

It is not because it happens to be Chelsea (who is very well off)... it is about a very well off person expressing the values of her class.

What her mother said, "we are regular folks." Compared to those who have money orders of magnitude larger than they do, she is correct. They are just working stiffs. When compared to the mean of income in this country, they are extremely well off. Oh and here is the real shocker. the Clintons are NOT middle class. They are wealthy. Their faux populism is grating at this point. Not because they are the Clintons mind you.

There are ways they could do it... and pull it off... see Warren Buffett, who is orders of magnitude wealthier than they are. The way they are going about it, is just silly, frankly. They sound naive and quite nuveau riche, perhaps because they are.

Trying to defend this by telling us that we cannot detect spin is kind of funny actually. In fact, extremely funny. Thanks for the comedy gold

[davidpdx]

93. +1

Wow, I have to say that is dead on. I must have bumped my head because I find myself agreeing with you more and more.

[PatrynXX]

60. considering the sh** that chealsea has put up with

I just rolled my eyes.. compared to what. Hannity doesn't do any reporting how much does he make?? beside he just sits there

[cali]

75. yes, she had shit- and great privilege as well.

In any case, she's an adult. She's chosen to be a public person. She said something dumb- no matter the silly "oh, you're taking it out of context". It was also strikingly tone deaf.

[Orsino]

65. Well, thanks for more spin.

Not sure, though,that the pig of privilege wears your lipstick well.

The Fast Company piece is puffery, and fails to provide any context that inverts the sound bite. No, (Chelsea) Clinton is a product of money, and if there's a takeaway from the FC article, it's that this little fish is not aware of the water, much less the struggles that ordinary people face in trying to obtain the occasional sip.

And there are DUers ready to nominate her when she comes of age.

[Romulox]

71. This is how truly privileged people (and their hangers on) think about themselves... nt

[JNelson6563]

76. Thank you.

I share your view of the Clintons but it always pains me to see DUers fall hook, line & sinker for obvious bullshit spin because it fits with their preconceived notion. I thought that was why we thought so little of faux news viewers and the like.

Julie

[ljm2002]

81. Long before this brouhaha...

...I had already formed my opinion on whether or not Chelsea Clinton is interested in money. That question was answered when she finished her degree at Oxford and went to work for ... wait for it ... a hedge fund.

Most of us care about money because we have to. Most of us find it hard to believe that, if you don't really care about money, your first job right out of university is a frickin' hedge fund. It sounds disingenuous in the extreme to spin that as "trying to care about money".

I do not begrudge the Clintons their money, not at all. But neither Chelsea nor Hillary have the common touch that made Bill so popular, and they both have a tin ear politically when it comes to the question of their own relative wealth.

[Dragonfli]

94. How much did she make there I wonder? It also occurs to me that maybe, perhaps maybe,

she got a job right out of school making more in a week than our kids could make in a year because of connections and perhaps favors owed her father for signing laws that allow such firms to extract so much of societies wealth. A place where hard work consists of manipulating accounts to make huge amounts of money without actually making or fixing anything at all. Her "very hard work" must have made her typing fingers very sore and tired at the end of the day.

What products or objects that are useful do hedge fund vultures actually produce?

[bettyellen]

82. yeah, if they had a Dean scream moment, some here would be the first to attack for it

and then use the excuse that they are just bad at campaigning.... So it's okay to join in the RW hatefest.

[Bonobo]

90. Is the issue of white privilege irrelevant here? nt

[bettyellen]

91. privilege is something every candidate has obtained along their way to the nomination, so......

yep, pretty irrelevant- like doors.
Much more important is the history of what each does and has done with that privilege. For people here to compare Chelsea with the Bush daughters, or her mother with Mitt is pretty much bullshit. Just throw Warren, Franken, and all Dems under the bus if you are going there.

[Hekate]

95. Thanks, JHB. What's going on here is disgusting.

Hekate
*Still haven't filled in my ballot for 2016