Nonsense about Chelsea Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal

Washington Post ^ | 04/20/2012 | Erik Wemple

[presidio9]

One of the unfortunate realities of writing about television news is a wholesale dependence on anonymous sources. In conflict with their stated mission of bringing daylight to opaque American institutions, news networks generally don’t let their folks speak freely about their workplaces.

And so we don’t know much about the people who helped Michael Hastings construct a delicious little hit piece on Chelsea Clinton for BuzzFeed. “Network executives” lamented her wan presence in interviews. “One senior staffer” predicted she’d be “terrible” on the small screen. “One NBC news staffer” signaled that “there’s resentment” over Clinton’s hiring and the privileges that Hastings documents, again via nameless sources.

All juicy, crunchy, salty morsels. The Clinton-NBC team-up furnishes just so much stuff to play with, and Hastings in this piece delivers details about town cars, live shots and other 30 Rock titillatia. Good on Hastings for rounding up some outraged NBCers.

Yet too bad all these anonymous sources are also shallow and mean creatures. That’s the revelation that hits us when we arrive at this particular passage of the Hastings piece:

Almost everyone I spoke to for this story—from within NBC and at other networks as well—agree that that problem is that she won’t talk about the one thing that makes her undeniably compelling. How did it feel to be Chelsea Clinton during the Monica years?

Spoken like true TV newspeople: There’s nothing that a little invasion of privacy won’t remedy!

To be fair to an unfair argument, Hastings and his sources are saying that Clinton’s puff pieces on do-gooders don’t make for great TV; she’s not a real reporter, ,

[presidio9]

I would have preferred to let the original story stand on its own, but it was immediately moved to "bloggers." Note to AdminMod: Sometime blogs CAN be news stories in their own right. This is obviously the case here, as it disturbed WaPo enough to merit editorializing.

[miss marmelstein]

Thanks for posting both articles - I enjoyed reading them.

The original piece was kinda dumb because the author assumed that Chelsea would be fascinating talking about Monica Lewinsky. And yet it’s clear from the entire article that she’s the most boring person in the world; something we here at FR knew for years. Why would she suddenly become interesting on this subject?

Like Caroline Kennedy, she’s been a sheltered little pet her whole life. That doesn’t make for strong, interesting personalities.

[the invisib1e hand]

monica lewinsky is someone’s daughter, too. was she about chelsea’s age when her fame began?

[doug from upland]

And a disgusting specimen of a father, Dr. Bernard Lewinsky, was angry at Ken Starr, not the man who defiled his daughter and created the noun “Lewinsky.”

[presidio9]

Like Caroline Kennedy, she’s been a sheltered little pet her whole life. That doesn’t make for strong, interesting personalities.

Unlike Kennedy, however, the msm has been complicit in groooming Clinton for bigger things since she was a teenager. As we speak, my atrocious Congresswoman (Nita Lowey) has made it one of the worst-kept secrets that her retiremant plans are on hold while she keeps the seat warm. The TV gig is necessary for seasoning, but Chelsea will be in the House by the end of the decade. After that she will replace one of NYs two Democrat Senators. Here in NY, she can probably accomplish both by reading a dozen or so speeches (someone else wrote) off a teleprompter.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Monica had already been defiled -- long before she met Billy Jeff. Remember the high school drama teacher and the pied a terre under the stage?

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Monica Lewinski was almost a decade younger than Chelsea is now at the time of the infamous activities in the Oval Office. I like to repeat the phrase "articulated a cigar in the vagina of [Ms. Lewinski]" when commenting on this, because, while that was what happened in one of the encounters, the mainstream press couldn't bring themselves to repeat it. (I guess that is the Clinton Rule of Political Scandals - don't so something bad, do something unspeakably bad!) So, by not disclosing the harsh facts as they were, they helped Clinton's team build up a defense. He should have been pressured to resign in March of 1998, but he had enough time (and willing supplicants in the press) to manage a defense. Perhaps one of the lowest moments in our nation's history. But, not any of Chelsea's responsibility. She shouldn't be able to evade the questions, however.

[miss marmelstein]

I have an apartment in NYC so I know what you’re talking about! I moved my main residence to NJ primarily because Hillary barged into NY. Then I had to put up with Jon Corzine.

Nita Lowey is a complete moron! She deserves whatever is coming to her. I hope she has to put her retirement plans on hold until Chelsea gets her first facelift.

My point about Caroline is that she, too, is an enormously dull individual. For some reason the MSM decided to throw her under the bus when she demanded to be appointed a NY senator.

I’m also not a fan of that Bush girl (Jenna?) who has a tv gig.

[martin_fierro]

Almost everyone I spoke to for this story—from within NBC and at other networks as well—agree that that problem is that she won’t talk about the one thing that makes her undeniably compelling. How did it feel to be Chelsea Clinton during the Monica years?

I'd think the most compelling question would be, "Who's yer daddy?"

[mkjessup]

Here in NY, she can probably accomplish both by reading a dozen or so speeches (someone else wrote) off a teleprompter.

Hell, it worked for that Kenyan dipsh*t in Illinois, eh?

[the invisib1e hand]

who said anything about 'chelsea's responsibility?'

you know what? I'm probably the only American alive at that time who refuses to be instructed in the sick details of that episode from hell.

[lbryce]

I wholeheartedly share in the sentiments you've expressed. There are many instances in which there were articles I've had to pass up on posting as a result of similar experiences regarding content category.

BTW: the article you've linked to seems to have been removed from being categorized under the 'blogging' label.

[presidio9]

My point about Caroline is that she, too, is an enormously dull individual. For some reason the MSM decided to throw her under the bus when she demanded to be appointed a NY senator.

Initially, the msms LIKED the idea of another useless Senator Kennedy. The closed ranks and defended her enthusiastically. They were forced to give up on their own stupidity when it came out that Kennedy hadn't even bothered to VOTE in over half the elections of her adult lifetime. You can bet your house that Chelsea hasn't missed a voting booth since she got home from Oxford.

[oh8eleven]

Chelsea will be in the House by the end of the decade.
Don't bet on it. Caroline Kennedy tried and failed miserably when it became apparent she was dumb as a box of hammers.

[miss marmelstein]

Hah! I couldn’t remember all the details of Little Miss Kennedy’s major flop in US politics. Thanks for reminding me!

[presidio9]

BTW: the article you've linked to seems to have been removed from being categorized under the 'blogging' label.

In my 13 years here on FR, that would be the first time I've ever witnessed a mod admitting it had made a mistake.

[ExNewsExSpook]

That’s the whole reason behind Chelsea’s TV gig at NBC. Caroline Kennedy’s Senate bid fell apart when she couldn’t muster a single coherent response to softball questions from a friendly interviewer. Sorta like Uncle Teddy’s infamous 1980 meltdown with Roger Mudd. And at least Teddy had an excuse—he was probably loaded at the time.

Chelsea’s stint with NBC News is aimed at giving her the “media skills” required to run for public office. But she’s as dull as dishwater and about as bright as a broken lightbulb. Unfortunately, she’ll win election in New York; in a competitive state, she’d get creamed.

One more note: after Chelsea’s stint at NBC, she will quietly divorce her layabout husband. Not exactly the kind of spouse she needs in politics, and he’s bound to get caught in a sex or drinking scandal in the near future. Hell. the Clintons will probably engineer the episode just to get rid of him.

[peeps36]

There is a possibility she was relieved that her daddy had his eye on some other young girl. We know big daddy Bill was a big sleazy pervert but we don’t know how big and sleazy.

[oh8eleven]

Chelsea’s stint with NBC News is aimed at giving her the “media skills” required to run for public office.
Well, if that was the "aim", she's waaaay off target.
My dirty socks have more character and personality.

[HIDEK6]

... and created the noun "Lewinsky,"

It's a verb.