No More Clintons
If you’ve been paying attention to some of the liberal-leaning political sites lately, you may have noticed an uptick in coverage of Chelsea Clinton. The one-time first daughter has been garnering an impressive amount of press for a former President’s child who’s not, say, George W. or Jeb Bush.
It seems odd compared to past presidential children: Barbara and Jenna Bush don’t attract much attention these days, and nor does Amy Carter. Coverage of the Obama girls has been limited to little more than noting when they go to Coachella or drink caffeine, and they’re younger and cooler and infinitely more interesting than Chelsea Clinton.
And yet, Clinton has been commanding the kind of coverage usually reserved for senior congressional leaders or important political figures considering presidential campaigns:
John Podesta’s hacked emails revealed that the Clinton campaign communicated with sympathetic neoliberal journalists during the Democratic primaries to coordinate their narratives when attacking Bernie Sanders. And it’s long been a part of Washington to dish out inside information to keep pundits and reporters happy. So it’s entirely plausible in theory, and pretty obvious in fact, to conclude that the same political apparatus that propelled her mother to the Democratic nomination and the most shocking electoral loss in generations is gearing up to push Chelsea Clinton into a position of power.
It was reported by The New York Post that Clinton is planning to run for the seat in New York’s 17th Congressional District, which contains her parents’ Chappaqua home. The New York 17th is currently occupied by Clinton ally Nita Lowey, who turns 80 in June and whose retirement has been subject to long-running rumor and speculation.
From a safe congressional seat, Clinton would be obligated to make few tough choices or real decisions. She could easily win perpetual reelection with the deluge of cash her family’s backers command. After time padding her résumé, Clinton would have options: she could run for Senate, or Governor, or Mayor of New York. If a Democrat manages to take back the White House, she might have the influence and access to campaign funds to command a cabinet post or other high-profile position — perhaps Ambassador to the United Nations. From there, Clinton would be poised to win her father’s old job and the one her mother so spectacularly failed to achieve — President.
The “Congresswoman Chelsea Clinton” plan lays bare the shortcomings of the Democratic establishment. Like her mother, she is the very definition of a candidate imposed upon voters by party leadership. Clinton has no real experience in government. She is not a grassroots organizer nor a labor leader. She has given no indication of new ideas or energy. She has never demonstrated political leadership in any meaningful capacity. She has never taken a principled, controversial stance on any issue. The non-partisan, non-profit political information group On The Issues records her as having essentially no political opinions, on anything. She has the standout “qualifications” of a very excellent, very expensive education, having name recognition through no doing of her own, and having access to a vast network or corporate donors via the same. There is zero indication that Clinton will be anything but a continuation of her parents: morally bankrupt; in the thrall of corporate money; adherent to the most detestable, platitudinous, rotten strain of neoliberal capitalist imperialism; an utter disaster for the poor and working people of the United States and the World.
