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.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.