Buzzfeed reports that Chelsea Clinton, the
uber-successful and talented NBC media personality and former
“business consultant” and hedge fund industry pro, might speak at
the Democratic National Convention Wednesday, possibly to introduce
her father.
In a recent “exclusive
interview” with Vogue, she said that she might be
considering a political career, having worked on her mother’s
presidential campaign in 2008 and hosted the wildly successful
“Making A Difference” segment on Rock Center with Brian
Williams.
Considering the way that she has been staunchly protected from
even the slightest media criticism during her adult life thus far,
even while actively campaigning for Democratic candidates, this all
raises an interesting question: Will anyone be allowed to criticize
her speech at the convention? Will anyone dare?
We first properly met Chelsea at her father’s
Inaugural Ball in 1993, clapping along onstage to Fleetwood
Mac’s “Don’t Stop” while thousands of her parents’ old Law Review
buddies gyrated along with her (war hero George Bush? He was
sitting at home, man). Sensing that something profoundly
important was happening but lacking her hip-swinging parents’ ol’
college-gang rhythm, Chelsea struggled to clap along on cue,
desperately trying to catch for herself an adequate share of the
good vibe.
How would this bizarre spectacle affect the poor girl, wondered
America. What would become of this bright young woman who so wants
to learn all the Vietnam War-ending, Watergate-uncovering dance
steps, but just can’t seem to find the beat?
As the years went on and Chelsea came of age, we started getting
a picture.
In one of the more absurd episodes of the 2008 presidential
race, then-MSNBC commentator David Shuster said that Chelsea was
being “pimped out” on the campaign trail by her parents.
(Before I go any further, a note to Media Matters: I personally
found Shuster’s comment to be one of the worst traumas this country
has ever suffered, one that tested the very fabric of our nation,
and at the time I would have encouraged all fair-minded citizens to
call the Washington, D.C. District Attorney’s Office to apply
pressure to prosecute Shuster under some law or statute.
Disgusting, reprehensible comments they were. Got it?
Reprehensible! )
According to the liberal tell-all book Game Change,
Hillary was apparently on the verge of tears over Shuster’s
comments, prompting Chelsea (an adult woman acting as a spokeswoman
for a political campaign) to call her mother and assure her, “I’m
okay.” Nevertheless, Hillary went ahead and led a smear campaign
against Shuster that led to his suspension and some of the most
over-the-top apologies in the history of media. Shuster’s comments
were “utterly inappropriate and indefensible,” Keith Olbermann said
at the time
in his apology to the Clinton family.
Compare that long national nightmare to the things Shuster
has said about Chelsea’s conservative age peer James O’Keefe,
or to the sexist things the liberal media routinely says about Ann
Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Ann Romney, etc. etc.
The constant, shrill, all-consuming faux-outrage with which the
Left constantly inundates us — a political tactic reaching
historic heights during the 2012 election — owes much of its
genesis to Chelsea Clinton, who is, by any indication, the most
victimized person that has ever walked the Earth. Remember the
apology Saturday Night Live had to issue in 1992 when
Wayne and Garth said that Chelsea is “not a babe”? At the time, she
was an adolescent. But the protective bubble her Mommy and Daddy
have built around her has persisted well into adulthood, even as
she advocates for candidates trying to transform the country.
Buzzfeed’s
reporting on the jealousy and hatred with which Chelsea’s NBC
co-workers have treated her behind-the-scenes indicates that maybe
she’s finally being exposed a little bit to the real world, or at
least to an especially vicious subsection of her own world (how
dare she use her family name to come in and here and steal our
spotlight, raved dozens of liberal Ivy Leaguers at NBC who
would have otherwise protected her had she not been stepping on
their turf).
Nevertheless, Vogue glowingly called Chelsea Clinton a
“representative of her generation.” I couldn’t agree more.
While Baby Boomers treated political correctness like a
fraternity affiliation at cocktail parties (“it’s okay, we
speak the right way, too. You’re among friends”) their
children aggressively police casual conversation and media
discourse for P.C. violations. While Boomers were merely very
special people trying to move the world forward a little, their
children are nothing less than hyper-rarefied victims of a system
designed solely to deny them their gold stars and after-school
snacks.
Chelsea Clinton, in effect, is the voice of a generation, and in
her burgeoning political career the Democratic Party has found its
dream candidate: one completely and utterly immune to
criticism.
I hope she represents us well at the Democratic National
Convention. But if she doesn’t, I’ll be damned if anyone dares to
publicly point it out.
Chelsea 2024!
