Chelsea Clinton is a political superstar in the making.

[MoonRiver]

You will see and hear much more of her in the future. GUARANTEED. :dem:

[me b zola]

1. She should stay on Wall Street

It will treat her well.

[MoonRiver]

2. And what exactly does that mean?

One can't be an economic analyst and still seek political office? :shrug:

[Teaser]

32. I think it means that

she can make CASH MONEY on wall street.

[MattNC]

3. What makes her a political superstar?

Aside from her last name?

[greguganus]

5. Agree. (I'm in NC too) n/t

[krawhitham]

60. worked for other family members

[crimsonblue]

4. no thanks

[Diane R]

6. Enough of the dynastys. These kids aren't qualified for anything on the basis of their last name.

[wyldwolf]

9. no, but growing up a Clinton (or Kennedy, etc.) ensures some fine mentors, no?

[greguganus]

10. And a fat wallet. n/t

[wyldwolf]

13. well, sure.

[RollWithIt]

11. To be fair to Chelsea, she graduated from both Stanford and Oxford......

She's now working professionally. If she chose to enter politics at some point I think she would be MORE than qualified. She grew up in the White House for christ sakes.

[Chloroplast]

24. Growing up in the White House doesn't count as a qualification.

It's not as if she was drafting policy in between orthodontic appointments and soccer practice.

[woolldog]

27. That's the kind of thinking that enables aristocracies and monarchies

to rise. Shame on you. That's NOT what this country is about.

[RollWithIt]

28. Uhhhh......

Which part of she has degrees from Stanford University in California and Oxford University in England and is working in private industry building a career did you not understand? Aristocracies the youth had NO REQUIREMENTS!! They didn't have to attend a 4 year university, or a distinguished graduate level university, or ever work anywhere for anyone else.

[woolldog]

41. So what?

if she's building a career. What does that have to do with anything?

Sorry but I'm not in favor of nepotism and cronyism. I'm not in favor of dynasties. No thanks. Just because her name is Clinton doesn't mean she'd make a superstar politician. No chance.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woolldog]

49. So what?

There are plenty of people who have excellent academic credentials and work in the private sector who would make terrible politicians. Am I supposed to be impressed by that? So what if the Republicans attacked her when she was a teenager? That's unfortunate but why does that mean that she'll be a "superstar" politician?

I don't see any evidence that she's especially suited to be a good politician as the thread suggests. You haven't offered any. Where do you get that from? From what I've seen of her, I've come to the exact opposite conclusion.

You seem to think that she'd make a good politician b/c of her last name. I don't think it should work that way.

[RollWithIt]

50. Basically you're opinion is that children of politicians are exempt from political activity....

That's retarded.

[woolldog]

58. No.

That is not my position.

My position is that simply being the child of a politician isn't enough to make someone a future political "superstar."

I ask again, what particular qualities make Chelsea Clinton a future political "superstar" other than her name, which you seem to think is good enough? Academic credentials and working in the private sector doesn't make someone a future political superstar.

Is she particularly charismatic? Does she have a history of leading others to action? A law degree or some other evidence of a firm grasp and passion for public policy? A history of community service? What?

[sandyj999]

7. She may not be interested. She needs to do what she chooses. n/t

[No Elephants]

8. If she does run, her parents will have cost her a lot of potential votes.

[wyldwolf]

12. ...and she'll have to disassociate herself from those like you or it will cost her even more

[No Elephants]

39. LOL, how will she disassociate herself from those like me? Run as a Republican?

[wyldwolf]

45. LOL, no...

by running as a Democrat, not a "prooogressssivvveee"

[writes3000]

20. Delete

[StevieM]

52. Nope, being a Clinton will be an advantage. Your belief to the contrary assumes that your sentiments

are reflective of most Americans--and IMO they are not.

Never-the-less, it amuses me that some Obamites are so hateful that they cling to the notion that the Clintons are disgraced politicians. Hillary was treated like a superstar at this Convention and her primary campaign was honored as a great chapter in American and Democratic Party history.

Sorry....but your preferred version of history has been rebuked.

Steve

[MoonRiver]

14. ALL I CAN SAY TO YOU *&^%$@#, IS

LOOK AT HER PERFORMANCE DURING THE 2008 PRIMARY. AND, DUH, MANY POLITICIANS COME FROM POLITICALLY POWERFUL FAMILIES. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE REALITY BY PROJECTION. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS IDENTIFYING YOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFICITS.

[wyldwolf]

16. this is an interesting development...

[writes3000]

18. Chelsea is her own person. And she seems to inspire alot of people.

There are many ways for her to lead. Politics is just one.

We shouldn't be arguing about what her future will be.

I think she's been a fantastic advocate for her mother and for Democrats.

She deserves a shot at whatever she wants to do next.

[greguganus]

19. I think we just found out what name the Big Dawg posts under. n/t

[SallyMander]

34. DUzy!

:spray:

[Starry Messenger]

21. Irony

thy name is capslock.

MPK

[Egnever]

53. Sweet caps !

did you break your keyboard or something pounding on it?

[writes3000]

15. She WILL have a voice of leadership if she wants it.

I hope for her she pursues her heart's dreams. If they lead her to politics - wonderful.

[BklynChick]

17. I don't see that at all

[writes3000]

22. I'm sick of a$$holes who are STILL fighting the primary. The behavior of losers.

Grow up, folks. Move on. There is nothing wrong with applauding Chelsea Clinton. Grow up!

There are MUCH bigger fish to fry.

[Egnever]

56. wow pot kettle there no ?

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Dear god, I hope not.

The dynastic principle in politics is one that's antithetical to the American idea, or should be.

[iconicgnom]

25. How about 8 yrs of Barack, 8 yrs of Michelle, then 8 yrs of Sasha?

By then the US should be used to the Obama monarchy and ready to simply hand down Kingship or Queenship to whoever's next in line, of the blue bloods.

But then, since we're rooting for dynasties now, I can't think of a reason why one genetic line should be better than another, so why not just hand over the monarchy to the Bush dynasty to continue?

[woolldog]

42. ok thanks

I didn't read this far down before posting and I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.

[Lisa0825]

26. Honest question here....

I have heard people dis Chelsea because she works for a hedge fund. For those of us who don't know much about this topic, please explain why this is such a negative. Yes, I could google... and I have before, but I'd rather hear the DUer bias because I trust the DUer bias.

[undeterred]

30. Its kind of the opposite of going to law school and using

your degree to give back to the community like Michelle and Barack did. Its trading on your family name to get a cushy job that overpays you on Wall Street.

[Lisa0825]

33. But does it actually HURT anyone?

Or is it simply that she took a money-making job? I don't mind anyone going for the bucks, as long as it isn't crushing others in the process.

[undeterred]

37. I think of it as a Republican career path

but no, its not hurting anyone. I see no reason why it makes her a political superstar, however.

[Lisa0825]

40. No, it doesn't make her a political superstar, but

I kept wondering why so many people used it as a slam against her, because I hadn't been able to find anything that showed that it was actually BAD, as opposed to just being perhaps a rather selfish path. Big difference, IMO, between doing business that HURTS people compared to doing something that makes you money without necessarily benefiting others.

[iconicgnom]

43. I dunno if it's "wrong". Hedge funds are very secretive.

Unregulated and secretive investment clubs for the very very rich and powerful. Using political/economic inside information and connections to game the market behind the scenes, where the rules themselves have already been gamed so much that there need be no public disclosure of who, what, where or how much. Unlike for more ordinary mutual funds etc.

What little I know of hedge funds, of the "elite" crowds who pool their connections in secret to game the global markets, doesn't leave me with any confidence that there's any actual underlying ethic to them, except to capitalize on wealth and power to the advantage of the wealthy and powerful. It's hard to see how anybody heavy into that kind of thing would give a flying flock about "fair trade vs free trade", etc. - and it's easy to see why those involved in that kind of thing might be heavily involved in promoting e.g. unregulated "free trade" with brutish regimes like Columbia. It's easy to see because the fit is perfect.

The question is whether either of the Republican or Democratic parties actually stand against that kind of concept. That kind of ideal. It doesn't seem so, to my eyes. But perhaps I'm missing something. If the Dem party stood against that kind of economics, that kind of ideal, there might be dissonance with the idea that Chelsea is building a credible political background by moving directly into the thick of it. But I dunno. Didn't her mother work on the board of Walmart? That isn't exactly a union family background, yet Hillary is at the heart of the Dem party, as this DNC shows. And didn't Bill get paid to lobby for a Columbian free trade agreement? He was a 2-term Dem president, the last Dem president since Carter. So I can't really see how the Dems are distinguished from the Republicans on these matters. So, I guess, for Dems it's all perfectly fine.

Hopefully someone will correct my errors.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZBlue]

31. Why? What has she done except campaign for her mom and dad?

Did I miss something?

[sniffa]

35. And so will Luke Russert

They both deserve it. They've earned it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. Oh Gawd. She seems to have become such a Stepford political

person. Just the way she walks makes me want to puke.

[Eric J in MN]

38. If someday she wants to run for Congress against a Republican incumbent,

...then good luck to her.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

46. your sister's name is Chelsea, too?

[Occam Bandage]

47. I hope not. She seems reasonably smart, but hasn't shown an inclination towards service

in any way whatsoever. I think she'd be best to coast to a few million on Wall Street and a few highly-placed friends on basis of her name and connections, and live a happy but insignificant life.

[silverweb]

51. Based on...?

:shrug:

She's lovely and intelligent, etc, etc, but I just don't see her in a front-line political role -- in a supporting role someday, maybe, but not as a candidate.

[Balbus]

54. From your mouth to god's ear...

She's smoking-hot! I couldn't see enough of her.

[SwampG8r]

59. i was wndering if i would be out of line saying that

since you did allow me to add
badonkadonk
she was buning that stage up

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

55. Chelsea, is that you?

Thought I told you to stay off DU.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

57. She's razor smart (Stanford and Oxford) and drop dead gorgeous

Whatever she wants to do is just fine with me.