Skip to comments.Chelsea Clinton's Baby, Politicized
Posted on 04/23/2014 5:04:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
Chelsea Clinton announced she's going to be a mother this year. That should elicit the same reaction reserved for the daughter of any former president: a polite "how nice." But this is a Clinton. Everything with the Clintons gets filtered through politics. It is fitting (and equally crass) that this news is met with this reaction: "Hillary (Clinton) in 2016. Does it help or hurt?"
Indeed, that is precisely how pro-Hillary pundits reacted, leaping to profess this will succeed in adding warmth and humanity to Hillary's image in the years to come. But put the celebration on hold. This was surely the same concept the Democratic pundits had in Little Rock, Ark., when Chelsea was born in 1980, and the warm image never really stuck.
It's easy to say Chelsea never chose this life for herself and certainly never deserved what her parents put her through in the national embarrassment of 1998. The media (including most conservative news outfits) never disturbed her childhood, which is good. What is not good is that many reporters never let her childhood end.
Coverage of Chelsea campaigning for her mother in 2007 and 2008 demonstrated that tendency. New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor penned embarrassing paragraphs about how Chelsea's "a focus of public fascination," co-workers find she has a "deeply admirable ability to yield focus," and "people seem delighted just to watch her lips move and hear sound emerge." Then remember David Shuster being banned from MSNBC for suggesting that "Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way."
That's too crude, but it's undeniable that Bill and Hillary Clinton have long performed a hypocritical one-two step in their political salesmanship. Chelsea was off-limits until it was crucial for them to plant their daughter next to them to improve their own tattered images. Their energetic media defenders danced those steps as well.
If the Clintons were truly retired from running for office, this baby news would be easy to celebrate. But since Hillary is making it obvious she's running for president again, the media's hyper-enthusiastic coverage makes the whole thing feel like a partisan event, right down to ABC cooing about how the Clintons are America's "royal" family. In fact, ABC spent almost 13 minutes over five days on Chelsea baby news, but failed to spend a second on some more substantive Washington stories, like Obama's latest delay of a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
It also feels partisan when compared to 2012, when Jenna Bush announced she was pregnant on NBC's "Today" show (where she, like Chelsea, is an occasional contributor). That drew 33 seconds on NBC, and the other two networks said nothing. Someone might argue that George W. Bush had been out of office for a term, so that wasn't as newsworthy. But that only underlines that this baby rollout carries the promotional echo of a future campaign.
It certainly is more promotional than the coverage of Republican offspring in 2012. The Romney sons were questioned again for their lack of military service. The liberal website Slate slammed Rick Santorum's kids for getting "too much vacation" from home-schooling and started a caption contest about Santorum's daughters -- including a middle-schooler -- where liberal commenters predictably started mocking how these girls were on contraceptives, or wearing chastity belts, or were improperly touching themselves. Radio host Randi Rhodes begged that Santorum's home-schooled kids should never try to be surgeons, pilots or nurses.
These families could only wish for the Clinton treatment.
Chelsea Clinton should enjoy first-time motherhood just like any other American. But the "royal family"? Let's turn down the volume on the hype.
Not just a work of fiction any more.
WAY more spooky.
Surprised that Chelsa didn’t offer the kid up on the abortion alter. That would really make her a raising star.
“Surprised that Chelsa didnt offer the kid up on the abortion alter. That would really make her a raising star.”
It would, but this is timed for Hillary’s benefit, IMO. She already has the hairy-legged butch feminazi vote in the bank. Images of “Benign Grandma Hillary” will be staged to grab votes for the political middle.
It is hard not to envision scenarios of a Hillary running for President using the “baby” for her own selfish ends. I can see a crying Hillary as she falls behind the Republican nominee holding the kid and a compliant media asking, “why do Republicans hate Chelsea’s baby?” or some such nonsense.
“punished...with a baby”
Obvious question for Hillary, “Has Chelsea considered getting an abortion? If not, why not? Is abortion still an option if polling doesn’t show a ‘baby bump’?
It’s a “baby”?
It’s an “unborn child”?
Sad but true...These people are truly beyond disgusting.
dig in your pocket for the money to hire a detective to go get all the DNA samples proving the concept.
History demands it
(a FR fundraiser to get the DNA for Web, Hillary, Bill, Danny williams etc would do the job)
Prediction: Chelsea will have this baby.
That Mezvinsky kid will truly be raised by a village. Keep the granddads away from him/her: one’s a convicted felon, the other’s an impeached President.
Why wouldn’t she?
The scary thing is that the Clintons and the Mezvinskys will be reproducing.
I remember this past fall it was reported that both she and her husband said in an interview that 2014 would be the year the start their family. Had mentioned that often in regards to Hillary, keep an eye on Chelsea.
I’d just as soon imply.....more fun to watch the Clintonites get livid. (seeing as how the truth in this case will not change any future elections)
Instead of having very public announcements on TV, it would've been much classier to not announce the pregnancy until there's a baby bump and people notice. It used to be good form to try to keep pregnancies private for the first three months or so.
“Obvious question for Hillary, Has Chelsea considered getting an abortion? If not, why not? Is abortion still an option if polling doesnt show a baby bump?”
Answer: The fetus was tested and found not to have the extra chromosome and is the right sex. it has not yet been tested for the dreaded TEA party syndrome. If TEA is found it will be sucked out immediately.
How many want to bet that Hillary told Chelsea that now was the time to get knocked up. I bet it was a direct order.
Baby? Let’s all be consistent, here. It’s Chelsea Clinton’s fetus!
In a sense you really have to feel for this child.
Conceived as a political prop. Sure to be raised by illegal Mexican nannies. Eventually to be trotted out and paraded around as the next link of a legacy chain.
Meanwhile these are the same people who accused Sarah Palin of the same thing. Democrats do love to project, don't they?
I was thinking the same thing. Anyone calling that a “baby” until third trimester is just wrong. Need to see some journos asking her if she’s going to carry the fetus to term and whether the baby will have her or her husband’s last name. Don’t pass this opportunity up.
Is that clarifying?
"So, Chelsea .... is Ed the baby-daddy, or just a beard? Is there Someone Special in the background that we need to know about?"
The thought of the Clintons as American royalty makes me want to put in papers at one of the Commonwealth consulates in LA. Or see if the nunciature in Washington will take citizenship apps.
Its the seriousness of the charge ...
Why is the Progressive world in love with Hillary.
Actually the progressive world is in love with Fauxcahontas Warren.
Hillary is more the “mainstream” Democrat candidate that the Entitlement Army AND crony capitalists feel very comfortable with.
Why would Chelsea abort her child? This kid is a vital part of the Hillary 2016 campaign. The MSM “granny gasm” has already begun in earnest.