Vanity Fair published an interesting piece about America’s Sweetheart Chelsea Clinton. What makes the article interesting is its lack of puffiness; the author is not impressed with the new, outspoken Chelsea Clinton. Nor am I.
Amid investigations into Russian election interference, perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods. In The New York Times alone, Chelsea has starred in multiple features over the past few months: for her tweeting (it’s become “feisty”), for her upcoming book (to be titled She Persisted), and her reading habits. The puff pieces in other outlets—Elle, People, etc.—are too numerous to count.
Every liberal media outlet in the nation is trying to make Chelsea “a thing” now, and I am absolutely perplexed as to why. Chelsea has less charisma than her mother, but a much larger entitlement attitude.
Chelsea, people were quietly starting to observe, had a tendency to talk a lot, and at length, not least about Chelsea. But you couldn’t interrupt, not even if you’re on TV at NBC, where she was earning $600,000 a year at the time. “When you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish,” one of Clinton’s segment producers at NBC, told Vogue. “She’s not used to being interrupted that way.”
Sounds perfect for a dating profile: I speak at length, and you really need to let me finish. I’m not used to interruptions.
In short, she is the (literal) spitting image of her mother; which is exactly what America needs at its helm right now, amirite?
You can read the complete article at the link. I’d recommend it, if only because T.A. Frank was most likely fired, drawn, and quartered moments after filing the article.