Chelsea Clinton covers ELLE: ‘Who sits at the head of the table matters too’

ELLE May 15 Cover

The Clintons timed this perfectly, didn’t they? Elle Magazine released their cover with Chelsea Clinton on Friday, just ahead of Hillary Clinton’s Sunday announcement that yes, obviously, she will be running for president again. Chelsea Clinton hits all of the Democratic party sweet spots in this Elle interview too – she talks about her baby (daughter Charlotte), her work with No Ceilings (an advocacy group for women’s rights) and the importance of having a female president. You can read Elle’s excerpts here. Some highlights:

ELLE: Is it a big change from before she was born?
Marc and I are like, “What did we do before we were parents?” My whole life is reoriented around my daughter in the most blessed sense. I now understand—this is something else that Marc and I talk about all the time—all of the enthusiastic, bombastically spectacular, wonderful things people say about their children, because we also feel and think all those things about Charlotte—that she is just the most remarkable little bubbly, perfect, chunky monkey creature ever.

ELLE: I was pregnant with my eldest daughter when your mother ran in 2008. I remember feeling that extra intensity you’re talking about and being really frustrated when people said that it didn’t matter if we had a female president, that it wouldn’t make any real change, that it was just symbolic. What do you think?
We’ve made real progress on legal protections for women, but in no way are women at parity to men in our country in the workplace. And if we look in the political sphere, it is challenging to me that women comprising 20 percent of Congress is treated as a real success. Since when did 20 percent become the definition of equality? And so when you ask about the importance of having a woman president, absolutely it’s important, for, yes, symbolic reasons—symbols are important; it is important who and what we choose to elevate, and to celebrate. And one of our core values in this country is that we are the land of equal opportunity, but when equal hasn’t yet included gender, there is a fundamental challenge there that, I believe, having our first woman president—whenever that is—will help resolve. And do I think it would make a substantive difference? Yes, we’ve seen again and again, when women have been in positions of leadership, they have had different degrees of success versus their male counterparts, historically being able to build more consensus so that decisions have longer-term effects, whether in economic investments or in building social capital. Who sits around the table matters. And who sits at the head of the table matters, too.

[From Elle]

I’ve always liked Chelsea and I believe she turned out to be a well-adjusted, intelligent and interesting person. It seems like her role in her mother’s campaign is going to change too – back in 2008, Chelsea wanted to still pretend that she was “private” while she quietly campaigned for her mother on college campuses around the country. Which meant that Chelsea didn’t want to do interviews, yet would speak publicly on behalf of her mother, and if she was every criticized (however mild), the Clinton campaign lashed out and said Chelsea is just a private citizen not a public figure. My hope is that Chelsea takes an active and public role in her mom’s campaign this time around. She’s a very powerful advocate for her mom, especially given that no one can control the Big Dog, you know? When the Big Dog goes off the leash, no one knows what he’ll say. It could be the height of brilliance or it could be… really bad.

Here’s Hillary Clinton’s presidential announcement commercial:

ELLE May 15_Chelsea Clinton 01 (1)

Photos courtesy of Paola Kudacki for ELLE.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

121 Responses to “Chelsea Clinton covers ELLE: ‘Who sits at the head of the table matters too’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Vee says:

    I just can’t with the women’s rights and equality talk. The Clinton Foundation took millions from oppressive governments who lash, stone and behead women!

    • Jegede says:

      Exactly, to a tee.

      If the Bush girls covered Elle or any other fashion mag, they would be called out in the extreme.

      Wish the Clintons and Bushes would just go away!!

    • Jag says:

      Oh but Clinton is now distancing herself from her charity, so the average member of the public will forget all about it.

      Yes, it would be nice to have a female President, but I want a good one. And Clinton isn’t that woman.

    • Nicolette says:

      What are you talking about? They’re “dead broke” remember.

    • boredblond says:

      +100..and I’m not sure a designer draped Elle puff piece is the best way to convey the ‘ I’m just like you’ message

  2. Ally8 says:

    Ugh, one of two dynastic millionaires sitting at the head of the table doesn’t do it for me or the ideal of American democracy. It’s bad enough that every recent president hails from Harvard or Yale, now the pool is reduced to Bushes and Clintons?

    I wish Elizabeth Warren would run.

    • Sixer says:

      This is what stands out to me, as a Brit. Here you are, with your lovely young country having thrown off the yoke of monarchy at your foundation and with all-pervasive national myths about social mobility, and what do you do with it? Establish heritable political dynasties! It’s nuts.

      And I don’t understand what relevance the daughter of a political candidate has to the candidates campaign generally. Much as I deplore our moribund political system here, at least relatives are rarely wheeled out. Even spouses rarely say that much, although they do hang about for photo ops.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Canada, same here, it is a relief not to have family members flung in our faces.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Ugh, I hear you. This is a BIG country, yet every time elections roll around, we have to wheel out a Clinton or a Bush. Wtf.

      • Kara says:

        i’ve spent quite some time reading about Merkel. it is the same in germany. germans are generally more private than americans so its also a cultural thing.

        you only see Merkels husband pretty much once a year (some classical music festival) and thats about it. he is a respected scientist and never talks about her because he does not want it to interfere with his research. at rare times he has been on functions with first ladies of other countries.

        Merkel is divorced (and still uses the name of her first husband) and has no children. so she does not have the stereotypical family and germans would be very suspicious of someone doing those photo ops anyway.

      • Sixer says:

        In the UK, I don’t think we’re fussed about whether or not our politicians are married or have children – it only comes up if there is something to say about it, eg our current PM had a severely disabled child who died – but we do get in the same sort of tizzy over any sex scandals.

        Another big difference is religion. Here in the UK, a politician would get nothing but the side-eye if they started invoking God every which way. It would be a vote loser; not a vote winner.

      • LAK says:

        Hey Sixer: How is the west Country re: candidates?

        I’m depressed that I live in the one borough in all of Britain that is so true blue and has been since voting was established (hyperbole, but you catch my drift?!) that only armageddon will cause any change. I cherish the right to vote, so I won’t abstain, but it’s depressing all the same that my vote will not make any difference.

        One of my friends is trying to unseat Harriet Harman so that is giving me something to hope for…..

      • Sixer says:

        Safe Tory seat here, like much of the West Country. The second party is the Lib Dems. Our nearest city (Exeter) is the closest Labour stronghold.

        It’s weird, having come from a Labour area of London. But they really hate Labour around here – not for being lefties but for being townies who don’t understand the countryside (which, having lived here for a while now, I have to admit is not without foundation).

        I’m voting with my conscience, so Green.

        ETA: It’s Harriet Harperson! (I know there’s no sisterhood in that joke, but it is funny!)

      • Lilacflowers says:

        People here elect candidates based on whether they want to have a beer with the person, if the spouse measures up to some ridiculous stereotype of political spouses (which resulted in Hillary pushes cookies back in 1992), and soundbites about whether or not they will or won’t cut taxes. There is never any discussion about WHOSE taxes will be cut (mine never have been) or what will be lost for those cuts. It is all rather disturbing and infuriating.

      • Sixer says:

        Here, we are voting on: economy, immigration and the NHS, which are by far and away the top three issues. See who you’d vote for if you were a Brit, Lilac! Our general election is in a few weeks.

      • bettyrose says:

        Sixer – just, yep. We’re a nation that lacks class consciousness. The “myth of social mobility” is a powerful force in encouraging people to vote against their own best interests. We aren’t skeptical enough of the ruling classes because secretly everyone dreams of joining them. As for abandoning the monarchy, though, keep in mind that every president except Kennedy has been of Anglo-Protestant ancestry (even Obama). After Regan, Harvard/Yale pedigree has also become a prerequisite.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Sixer, the link won’t open on my phone so I’ll have to look later. Immigration is supposedly a big issue here but the people who campaign around it never propose actual legislation and their supporters seem to think we only have one border. Every illegal I ever met FLEW here. They are campaigning about health care too – they want to take it away from us apparently

      • Nicolette says:

        The relevance is that Chelsea is more then likely lining herself up to run for office someday. Because you know that Clinton machine just has to keep pumping out candidates.

      • LAK says:

        Sixer: I forgot about Harriet Harperson!!! LOL.

      • Sixer says:

        Bettyrose – yes, the outright denial of class and heritable privilege seems as pernicious as the over-focus on class boundaries we have here.

        Lilac – here, the immigration issue is also a cipher for anti-EU sentiment because of the free movement of people within the EU. So we can (and have) put controls only on immigration from outside the EU. Me? Don’t mind immigration at all: it stops us stagnating.

        Nicolette – rather my point in a nutshell, you know?

        LAK – but she did wear her ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirt into Parliament. So we forgive her a bit!

      • perplexed says:

        Does Chelsea have Hillary’s ambition to be President? I think Chelsea has accomplished what the child of parents in her social class are expected to achieve, but I can never tell how ambitious she is. Her mother’s ambition and drive seems to be on another level.

      • OhDear says:

        @ perplexed – I don’t think she does – she strikes me as someone who doesn’t seem to know what she wants to do. She’s bounced around in a bunch of different and disparate positions (consultant, hedge fund, public health, the NBC special correspondent job).

      • littlestar says:

        Well, Canada has its own political dynasty of sorts, the Trudeaus. However, I feel like Justin Trudeau has done a decent job of distancing himself from his father to forge his own identity as a politican, but still gently remind us of who is father was.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        It’s not even just the candidates children…they focus on voter’s children in the US too!

        I grew up in one of the states that votes early in the primary/caucus season. The campaign never ends there! As a child, we had candidates coming into our elementary schools reading us books, we had their wives hosting lunches at the schools, all kinds of events aimed not just at the voters, but even the children of voters.

      • Imo says:

        I don’t think it is accurate for you to say that social mobility is a pervasive American myth. The truth is that class boundaries are strong but they are porous. It takes determination, money and time but social mobility and even structural redifinition are quite prevalent in this country. We don’t pretend that there is no elite ruling class etc but we also subscribe to the belief that in this country anyone can make it – and we prove it. If you just examine politics on a national level this may seem that it is not the case.
        You make interesting points but at the end of the day there are no slots in the hierarchy that are irrevocably off limits to anyone in this country be they in politics, industry, technology, the arts etc. try as you might you can not move to England and apply/pay for your Duchess coronet. The good stuff has been divided up and passed out to the elite centuries ago – nothing left except to watch the new money try to snuggle up to it and dream. No thanks.

      • jane16 says:

        I so agree with Lilacflowers & Bettyrose on this thread. Yes, American’s keep voting against their own interests because they think they’ll be part of the rich class one day, so true! And the tax cuts are always for the rich. Now they want to get rid of the estate tax (again) and the dumb voters will support the repubs because the repubs call it “death tax”. Estate tax will never affect most of the people in this country, but Joe Patriot in Kansas is worried that his beer stein collection will be sold for death taxes when he dies, so he gladly votes for repubs who have bankrupted his state. It goes on and on. Seriously, who better to tax? Extremely wealthy dead people, or living middle class people?

      • Imo says:

        On this I agree with you, bettyrose and lilacflowers. I just don’t agree with the premise that social mobility is a myth. Its just that some people will gladly adopt the morals and principles of the very ones that suppressed their climb on the way up. But at least one *can* go up.

      • Sixer says:

        Imo – I’ll just say this: you do realise that the UK is a more socially mobile society than the US, don’t you? Not by much, admittedly, and we’re both lagging way behind the Scandi countries, for example. But the fact remains that if you’re born into the bottom economic quintile in the UK, you stand more chance of making it into the top quintile over your lifetime than you do in the US.

        Your post is what I mean by pervasive national myth.

        Inequality breeds more inequality: not opportunity.

      • Imo says:

        I didn’t compare the US and the UK with the exception being the Duchess example, which is quite true. Nor did I discuss the ease or difficulty with which one may drastically improve one’s lot in the US. I simply disagreed with you that social mobility is a myth. Too many examples to count to prove my point. But if you insist on focusing on comparative prevalency it is hard to discuss your premise. If one goes from third generation working class to entrepreneur that is upward mobility. And that squarely fits into the metrics used in the study you linked to.
        Yes inequality breeds more inequality and pervasively so but success is not out of one’s grasp in this country. Hundreds of thousands have broken the chains of poverty, inequality etc and excelled socially and economically. I’m not sure why this is considered a myth just because it doesn’t happen as often or as easily as it should.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Sixer, well, according to that questionnaire, I would be voting Green, although split with Labour/Lib Dem leanings. I liked that all positions were presented and laid out for each issue. We rarely see anything like that here. I get questionnaires from the various parties and often wonder if they are on the same planet because the lists of issues, never mind positions on those issues, are so different.

        Immigration concerns here seem to be racially/ethnically motivated and, as I said, those who talk about it the most don’t seem to realize that we have a huge border up north, which the Millenium bombers tried to cross or that ships and planes can bring people here legally who plan to stay here beyond the terms of their visas.

        Taxes is an issue where I see people vote against their own interests. The same with benefit programs. My cousin’s wife insists that illegal immigrants and drug addicts are stealing her tax dollars through benefit programs while “real Americans”, meaning people who look like her, can’t get on the programs so they should be eliminated completely. This is despite the fact that her grandchild has a disease that will claim her before the age of five and that those benefit programs she hates so much and wants eliminated have provided that child the medicines, surgeries, adaptive equipment she needs to not only keep her alive but make the life she has as easy and enjoyable as possible.

        @IMO, sorry but your point, as you said yourself, is dependent on having money. Money opens doors. Without money, one stays put. No mobility.

      • Imo says:

        I have not contradicted myself. It takes money to get ahead in this country, yes. But that bolsters my point that social mobility is not only possible but encouraged in the US. Sixer said it was a myth. The truth is that if you can convince the masses that you have something they want they will trade that something for money – no exceptions. The result is money and the mobility that goes with it. The point you and a few others keep making has to do with the frequency, difficulty or inequality of such a setup but those points do not intersect the basic fact that it is possible to ‘come from nothing’ and make it. Social mobility, based almost exclusively on economics, is not a myth in America. If so, Oprah Winfrey, bill Gates, Donald Trump and Jay-Z are taking that myth straight to the bank. My mom’s neighbor was a high school graduate who bought a used lawnmower and cut grass for people on the weekends. Thirty years later he and his children own a string of high end landscaping companies. His grandchildren have no idea that the family never had money. They are living the American dream.

      • Sixer says:

        @ Imo – I’m making you touchy, sorry. Nobody is saying that NOBODY can make it in the US.

        I think you are misunderstanding what constitutes a national myth. It’s a well-known academic term used to indicate some kind of inspirational narrative specific to a country that binds together a national sense of self. And its contribution to the national sense of self becomes more important than how objectively true it is. All countries have national myths. The general term for a national myth that is fully and entirely untrue is “noble lie”.

        I would say that in the US, social mobility is the national myth expressed by the “land of opportunity” and “American Dream” narratives that you describe so well in your posts. And yes, some people do fulfill the American Dream. However, expressed as facts on the ground, fewer people make it from the bottom to the top in the US than they do in almost every other developed nation on Earth. So the idea is tremendously powerful and the evidence less so. Do you see?

        I used the term national myth in my OP because the establishment of heritable political dynasties is so obviously at odds with the way Americans see themselves and their country.

        Hope that’s clearer!

        @ Lilac – I did all ten policy areas and came out 8 Green and 2 Lib Dem (democracy and environment were Lib Dem). I think to a greater or lesser extent people vote against their interests internationally, don’t you? (See the debate with Imo about national identity to see that the way people FEEL can be so much more important than the actual facts on the ground).

      • Imo says:

        Touchy? Okay…well, by painstakingly defining what a national myth is you clarify your assertion but you still don’t support it. Social mobility in America may be elusive or downright impossible for millions here but that doesn’t make it a myth. Many more millions, including waves of immigrants, former slaves and disadvantaged populations, strongly prove my point. And again, your original claim had nothing to do with comparing the US to others. The kind of success achieved by so many people in the US can not be vacated by a survey or your claim that economic advancement in the US is a fairy tale.

    • Kylie says:

      Technically Hillary went to Wellesley for undergrad before going to Yale for law school.

      • bettyrose says:

        Yes, and Obama went to Columbia undergraduate. Bill went to Georgetown. The reference to Harvard/Yale pedigree wasn’t specific to undergrad.

    • HurryUp says:

      A couple doesn’t make a dynasty. This is a silly argument.

      • bettyrose says:

        I agree Hurryup, but the Clintons have suffered from overlapping the Bush clan, a true dynasty, and history has labeled them all as competing dynasties. It got ugly in 2008 with the endless anti-Hillary rhetoric blaming her for an entire generation of new voters who’d only lived through Bush/Clinton presidencies. That’s no longer true thanks to 8 years of no Bush or Clinton in the highest office. I have my issues with Hillary but this isn’t one of them.

      • jane16 says:

        Well said. And I personally like Chelsea, and would like to see more of her. She is a refreshing change next to the Kartrash and their ilk.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Bettyrose, true. The Bush family’s political power goes back decades and generations. The Clintons are it – neither had parents or grandparents with wealth or power.

  3. NewWester says:

    I remember some of the terrible things some members of the media called and described Chelsea when her parents were in the White House.
    She has grown into a very confident and lovely young woman. Haters may talk trash about her parents but no one can deny they did a great job raising their daughter

    • alice says:

      And Rush Limbaugh is still the ugly, disgusting slob he was when he called her names when she was only thirteen.

    • candice says:

      Indeed. She comes across as being very confident and I wonder if it’s because of her experience or in spite of it. I also think she’s a very good, polished speaker and her intelligence is quite evident in the interviews and speeches I’ve seen. I’ve seen comparisons made between her and George Bush’s daughter – the one who got the gig on the Today show – and they are worlds apart. Chelsea seems to have substance and intelligence in spades. The Bush girl, not so much.

      • Jayna says:

        I love Chelsea. But Jenna Bush is very nice and far from dumb, even though not as articulate as Chelsea. But Jenna is more enlightened about social issues than her father. She and her sister take after their grandmother.

        And her twin, Barbra Bush, is doing great things with her humanitarian organization.

        Both girls who grew up to become women and daughters to be proud of also, and they both seem open-minded.

      • Debbie says:

        Sorry I have no use for the bush girl’s father and think he destroyed this country, I also think very highly of the Clinton’s. That being said Jenna bush seems to be a kind, thoughtful, compassionate, and highly intelligent human being. I’m sure her sister is as well I just haven’t seen her interviewed to comment.

        These people’s children are just that their children, they shouldn’t be judged by their parents.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Jayna, which grandmother? I had the misfortune of meeting their paternal grandmother and “enlightened about social issues” is not a term I would use. I do hope they are nicer and more compassionate than that woman.

  4. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I like Chelsea. I would like to see a woman president for the same reason I was happy to see a black president – not because it’s an instant cure for the problems we have with inequality, but because it will plant seeds for the generation that comes after us. Children will grow up seeing nothing unusual about a black person or a woman holding the most powerful position in the country, and that may eventually change the game.

    I don’t think it is a reason to vote for someone by itself. And I won’t go into all the reasons that I don’t think Hillary is the right person for the job. As a woman, I don’t appreciate the “vote for Hillary because she’s a woman.” You should vote for someone because they are the right person for the job. Their sex or race shouldn’t stop you for voting for them, but it shouldn’t be the reason you vote for them, either.

    • Birdix says:

      You make good points. What’s bugging me is that it’s only just begun, and already people are shouting that the only reason people would vote for Clinton is because she is a women. It’s such a knee-jerk response that shuts down conversation before it starts. I don’t remember people using a similar tack with Obama (is that bad memory on my part?.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        That’s on Hillary and her supporters. Hillary said yesterday “isn’t it time we had a woman president?” When we were discussing her on here last week, so many of her supporters said, yeah, she’s a liar and very problematic ethically, but I’ll vote for her because she’s a woman. You never heard Obama say vote for me because I’m black.

      • Nebby says:

        Yes that’s really bad memory on your part. President Obama got that tactic and plenty other racist things said about him and his wife. Unfortunately Hilary will have to deal with plenty of sexism and will be judged twice a hard too… Sucks being the first.

      • Birdix says:

        I’m of two minds about that–because, yes, it is time for a female president, and there’s no point in her trying to play down that she’s a woman. From her video, I saw her priority as being helping the middle class, not vote for me because I’m a woman. And yet I’m agreed that ignoring her faults and voting based on her gender is stupid. Obama did a better job of making his optimistic message what inspired people to vote for him. And yet he wasn’t a perfect candidate either, and while I do remember racist remarks, I don’t remember it being so common for people to be accused of voting for him only because he was black. While I realize that many people make decisions based on who seems most like them (conservative minivan moms for Palin?) it still feels demeaning to assume that everyone’s a blind follower. Feels like the same ugly partisan yelling that politicians swear off of but do anyhow, and it shuts down more conversations than it starts.

      • Michelle says:

        @Birdix, I don’t think it is really fair to say that most people are calling out Hillary supporters as voting for her simply because she is a woman; the problem here is that there are MANY Hillary supporters who are saying first and foremost, unabashedly that one of the main reasons they are voting for her is because she is a woman. It isn’t just something that is being pulled out of the air, unfortunately there are a lot of people who are claiming this is a significant reason for them to vote for her. I don’t dislike Hillary, but I certainly think it is WAY too early for any person to say they know who they’re voting for. We don’t even know all of the candidates yet and the election is very far off. I’m finding all of this “I’m throwing my support behind so-and-so” at this point in time to be completely ridiculous.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Birdix, I hope you don’t think I was saying that the only reason someone would vote for Hillary is that she’s a woman, because that was not my point at all. I wouldn’t vote for her period, but I understand that there are people who would because they see her as experienced and intelligent, or other reasons. I’m just saying that I don’t think anyone should vote for anyone because of their race or sex. As Michelle said, the “vote for Hillary because she’s a woman” is coming from the Hillary camp, and Hillary herself. She’s playing every card, including that one, and I just find it insulting. I’m not saying that there aren’t people I respect who are voting for her for what they believe are good reasons, and not because she’s a woman.

      • Christo says:

        WHO specifically has said this??? Please cite who you are speaking about who is saying that we should vote for her because she is woman?? I watched all the Sunday morning talk shows and not one person harped on this point.

      • Wren33 says:

        Even today people (especially Fox News types) accuse people of only voting for Obama because he was black. It is part of their whole “Messiah” schtick.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        SHE said it. Hillary on Sunday “don’t you think it would be nice to have a woman president?” And did you read the comments on here last week? The majority of her supporters had nothing to say about her other than she was a woman, and many of them stated flat out that that’s why they’re voting for her. Read this article. Her daughter is talking about what? Her qualifications? No – that she’s a woman, and it would be good to have a woman president.

    • Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

      On the other hand it might show future generations that the president’s: race, gender or sexual preference makes absolutely no difference when the government is completely beholden to the ruling elite.

      • Nicole says:

        … but that you can only be a girl president if your husband was a president before. I think future generations of young women deserve a better first female president… one that opens up the job for other women, not one who disastrously shuts down the conversation after four years. Just no.

      • alice says:

        I’ll be happy when a candidate doesn’t have to pretend to be a bible thumper and can be an out and proud Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, Atheist, etc. Most of those pew sitters have fewer morals than the Mayflower Madam.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        ” but that you can only be a girl president if your husband was a president before.”

        She was a partner in a law firm when her husband was elected to be Governor. She was a Senator. She was Secretary of State. She has accomplished a LOT on her own. In fact, that was held against her during both of her times as First Lady.

      • anon321 says:

        Hillary was a Senator and Secretary of State but did nothing substantial while holding these positions. Holding a title doesn’t mean a thing if she didn’t do the job.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        How can you say she didn’t do the job?!?!?! That is nonsensical.

        A Senator’s job is to vote. She voted hundreds of times. Did she make decisions about authorizing and voting for war in her time as Senator? Yes she did.

        A Secretary of State’s job is diplomacy and she visited over 100 countries in her time as SOS.

    • FingerBinger says:

      It’s time for a woman president but it shouldn’t be Hillary Clinton.

      • Christo says:

        It is time for a GREAT PRESIDENT….regardless of whether it is a woman. I love how hypocrites so readily lambaste others for wanting a female President and complaining about the gender element…and then do an about-face with pronouncements like: it is time for a woman President, but not Hillary. Ok, well sounds like you want a female President as well. So much for dispelling the gender bias when you harbor in all cases but Hillary.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Nobody is lambasting people for wanting a woman president. My point was simple. That’s no reason to vote for someone. I would like a woman president, but I’m not going to vote for someone just because they’re a woman. What’s hypocritical about that? Your argument is just stupid and your bias is clear. Stop making things up and putting words in other people’s mouths. NOBODY said what you’re claiming.

    • Christo says:

      @GNAT There was absolutely NOTHING said on Sunday regarding the statement you are quoting. Has there been a tongue-and-cheek reference to this fact before this?? Of course. But, the truth is that many in her inner circle hated the fact that she DID NOT MENTION the gender aspect as much the first time around in 2008 because the theme at that time was that she could hang with the men, take the 3am phone call…..because GENDER and playing on her GENDER was considered weak.

      And regarding the discussion in the article about Hillary potentially being the first woman President, the INTERVIEWER for a WOMAN’S magazine ASKED HER the question.

      So, should Chelsea have cut off the interviewer in the middle of her question and said “Oh NO. Don’t bring up the gender aspect in any of this.” SHE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION, and her response indicated that it would have some symbolic value, which, YES, it would—-JUST LIKE OBAMA has a modicum of symbolic value on some level, which SURELY YOU CAN ACKNOWLEDGE.

      No one is saying vote for her BECAUSE SHE IS A WALKING VAGINA and that is it, but your characterization is that her supporters only see her as big bowl of ESTROGEN….and that is all she has to offer and that is all that her supporters see in her. Are there fangirls who will vote for her because she is a woman???? YES, OF COURSE THERE WILL BE. She can’t control who will like her or in what form that will take. I am certain JEB will get a ringing endorsement ultimately from Pat Robertson and the fundamentalist crowd, but I don’t necessarily think he is in agreement with everything they say that brought them to that endorsement.

  5. Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

    Apparently Hillary is attempting to become America’s first female president. Just in case you missed it the first three billion times it was mentioned.

  6. Birdix says:

    On the one hand, she’s smart and well-spoken and makes her mother seem younger. On the other, she’s a (former?) Wall Street banker who’s part of the one percent, has never faced the middle class struggle of the campaign video (but can possibly deliver Wall St $). It will be interesting to see how she fits into the campaign.

    • metallicwow says:

      Don’t forget her $600K/year contract with the Today Show….that she got with literally zero journalism experience or talent. Yeah, those Clintons are all about fairness and equality.

  7. Lilacflowers says:

    Perfect chunky monkey creature.

  8. Nicole says:

    I hope the Americans elect someone good again, like Obama, not some fake royal, like creeper Clinton’s wifey.

    • Kara says:

      since when was Obama a good president?

      • Kaley says:

        I mean, I disagree with some of the things he’s doing (drone strikes overseas) but I would argue that he actually has been a pretty good president…he fixed a lot of sh*t that I honestly thought was permanently destroyed over here. He also has a more “fittingly American” family and moral code than Clinton and well…Bush existed so maybe I wasn’t looking for much.

        Pretty good President doesn’t sell very well in the media, sadly.

      • SamiHami says:

        Only in some peoples’ fantasies.

      • WinterLady says:

        I’ll admit as well that in some ways Obama leaves something to be desired, but I agree that he was needed in America. I’m just happy they he didn’t start anymore wars or push America to be the world police. Bush did a lot of damage to the image of the US and Obama managed to win back hearts and minds in that arena.

      • Kara says:

        Obama won a lot of hearts worldwide while campaigning but it also led to people having higher expectation.
        Obama has led a war on journalism and whistleblowers and pushed for more drones and never took the torture serious, i mean “we tortured some folks” couldnt have been less empathetic to government rape and torture.

        just because Bush was worse should never lead to think Obama has ever been on the side of human rights.

      • WinterLady says:

        Well, basically that’s what politics seems to be these days-trying to pick between the lesser of two evils. Unfortunate, but that’s the way the world spins.

      • Nicolette says:

        @WinterLady, no Obama didn’t start any wars but is striking a dangerous deal with Iran that has even some of his supporters alarmed. Iran has repeatedly, even during these talks, called for death to America. Their foreign minister came out as Obama was patting himself on the back yet again to tell the world that what our president was saying is not what was agreed upon. Allowing Iran to obtain a nuke will bring the world to a dangerous place. And no he doesn’t push us to be the world’s police, but rather he apologizes for us constantly. I love my country and am damn proud of it. If we’re so horrible why are so many desperate to come here? And you are right when saying the only choice we seem to be given as voters is to choose between the lesser of two evils. It’s sad and frustrating to say the least. So far the pool I’m seeing isn’t showing much promise for 2016.

      • nic919 says:

        I am not American, but Obama did manage to pull the American economy from the depression it was heading toward during the Bush years. The US economy is currently doing better than most Western economies. And he killed Osama bin Laden, who was actually the one behind 9/11. And he brought in a health care program for those who never had one. Those three things alone are historic and much more than Bush did (or even Clinton).

        Was Obama perfect? no. But with a Congress who openly stated its purpose was to block him at every turn, I would say that he has done a pretty good job.

        Maybe you are too influenced by Fox “News” and its propaganda, but Obama is going to be viewed as a good president historically when actual facts are examined.

      • Tristan says:

        Obama is the best president the US has had in ages. He has achieved miracles for the US, despite inheriting a moribund economy & facing implacable opposition from the Republican Party at every turn. As a European it is mind boggling to see the hate people have for him despite his incredible achievements. He deserves to have his image carved into Mount Rushmore. It is also mind boggling how ANYBODY who isn’t either a billionaire or a hate filled religious fanatic would EVER want to vote Republican

      • Kara says:

        ah the Fox news argument. i am not even american. nice try though, complelty doging what i said about torture for example or him leading a war on journalism while claiming to be the most transparant admin in history.

        america has two right wing parties, thats probably why people assume that hating Obama makes one a republican. most US liberals would never be seen as left wingers in europe. he is simply someone who brought misery to a lot of countries and kept on violating their sovereignity. not to talk about yet again bowing down to Wall Street.
        why punish soldiers who shoot civillians when you can jail the person exposing the crime?

      • anon321 says:

        Double post.

      • anon321 says:

        Please, explain to me again how Obama killed Bin Laden? I remember Navy Seals putting their lives on the line but can’t quite place Obama in the same picture. I was working as a contractor for SD at the time so if he was included on the mission I certainly would have heard it. I do remember the “I, I, I…” speech when he announced it on television – my vanpool mates, mainly military, had a field day.

        I DON’T WATCH FOX NEWS, however, I find the guy to be a tremendous liar (if you like your doctor…), a naive coward in the way he handles international affairs and petty and unprofessional when dealing with our allies. He also makes fools of black Americans by promoting amnesty for illegal immigrants while the unemployment rate for blacks is double the average and for black males is in the 20s. I can’t wait for this to be over.

  9. Kara says:

    “And one of our core values in this country is that we are the land of equal opportunity”

    if your name is Bush or Clinton, you have even more equal opportunities.

    • Vee says:

      Exactly. No more Bushes or Clinton’s.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:


    • Nicolette says:


    • Lilacflowers says:

      Let’s not leave out the Romneys. George and Mittens were both governors who ran for president and Tagg has been threatening to run for something

    • Nicole says:

      Thank you!

    • PennyLane says:

      Yeah, I used to like Chelsea Clinton. She didn’t get to choose the life her parents had made, and she seemed to want to make a path for herself in the world.

      Then she took that $600,000 job at NBC as a ‘journalist’ when she was in her early thirties and had absolutely zero journalism experience – in reality she was just trading future access to her parents to a news organization. I totally lost respect for her. Why put in years of hard work when you can be a hack???

    • Alicia says:


      If It’s yet another Bush-Clinton presidential race I will be seriously irritated. If Jeb Bush wins he’ll be the THIRD Bush in the White House in the past 30 years and Hillary Clinton would be the second Clinton in just 20 or so years.

      For all of Americans talk about hating royalty, many of us sure love our American “royal” families and dynasties.

    • fadad says:

      You might as well add anyone who has bascially been President. Inclduing the Obamas, what makes you think his daughters aren’t growing up welathy and privledged just like Chelsea or the Bush girls were? They have as much oppertunity as them too. Didn’t Malia already get hers first taste of nepotsim? She works for Steven Speilberdg in Hollywood. What 16 year old interns for a big Hollywood director? Come one, its not only the Bushs and Clintons that are privledged.

  10. ncboudicca says:

    So far I’m not voting for anyone who has officially announced…I’ll be damned if I vote for someone just because she’s a woman – by that logic, I should’ve voted for McCain because Palin was the VP candidate.

    • ava7 says:

      Exactly! I wanna scream every time a woman in my group of friends/acquaintances goes on about how it’s every woman’s duty to vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman, and giving her a pass on all the past lies and scandals. I think that is insulting to women, and manipulative to boot. It reminds me when Cameron Diaz was on camera telling people they had to vote for (whoever the Democrat candidate was at the time, I think it was Gore?) because “Republicans” were going to take away women’s right to vote if we didn’t. No matter how anti-Bush I was, that kind of manipulation just made me sick. I fully expect to hear that kind of rhetoric from Hillary’s campaigners.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Right. Women have everything to offer that men do. How insulting is it to say we should be elected just because we are women?

      • Kara says:

        only that most men are in power because of their gender. compare it to affirmative action. its not a perfect system but it gives oppressed groups a chance of representation.
        as soon as the society is an equal one you can vote based on other factor but as long as women are still oppressed the vote for a woman makes a lot of sense.

        i think its long overdue for a woman to be president.

        if not now when?

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      When a woman with integrity runs. When a woman who has worked her way up on her own, not on her husband’s coat tails runs. When a woman who has distinguished herself in her previous jobs in ways other than collecting indictments for illegal behavior runs. When a woman who wasn’t already in the White House and stole half a million dollars worth of furniture when she left runs. When a woman who doesn’t make up lies about dodging bullets in a war zone when she was actually accepting flowers from children in a ceremony runs. When a woman who we can trust and respect runs.

      • ncboudicca says:

        Preach it, GNAT

        @Kara, Yes, I do believe the system is unequal, but I fail to see how electing a woman to the presidency will automatically fix that. .

  11. amanda says:

    I wasn’t questioning anything until Hilary compared preparing to run for president with wanting to train your dog not to eat the trash…


    getting married, jobs to prepare for after college, babies, moving for your kids education…fine. all important and significant…

    but dog eating the trash one second to, literally, the next sentence “I’m running for president”

    made me laugh.

  12. Jayna says:

    I will always stand for Hillary. Go, Hillary.

  13. chelsea says:

    She’s overdoing the new mom exuberance, I think. Post-partum depression, a smidge?

    • notsoanonymous says:

      The use of the label ‘post-partum depression’ as an insult is shocking to me. This kind of thinking is exactly why so many women are afraid to seek treatment or speak out.

      As a mother of a young child, who is for now my first and only – her comments resonated with me. That was exactly how we felt becoming parents in our early/mid thirties – our daughter is the absolute light of our lives and we could go on and on about her. She isn’t a special snowflake by any stretch, but she is ours to cherish and love. Our feelings about her, as well as our struggles to get pregnant in the first place, spill over into the positive ways which way we speak about her. Both my husband and I are mid-career and doing phenomenal, but having a child DOES change your life at an almost cellular level.

      She isn’t over-doing anything, in my opinion – she is just a first-time mother like anyone else. I don’t expect anyone else to understand why I am obsessively in love with my little girl, but I shouldn’t have to apologize for it or be ‘insulted’ (with the PPD comment) as a result. Same goes for Chelsea.

  14. Tracy says:

    I’m for Hillary all the way. No candidate is perfect, but she more than proven herself in many subordinate roles and no other candidate, Republican or Democrat, has a better or more experienced resume. Plus, I like what she’s trying to do. So there!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Name one thing she did as Senator or Secretary of State.

      • littlestar says:

        Ummmm use her own personal email account instead of her authorized government email. I’ll go with that one.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        What people do in their jobs as Senators and Secretary of State isn’t always a bullet point. Especially in congress, the members work in concert with other members (and the President) to pass legislation or work to prevent legislation from passing. I think people can certainly look to her voting record and decide if they agree with it or not.

        You can’t go to a Senator’s record and look for something they did all on their own, because you will never find it. It is a team sport, which is why the balance of parties matters so much.

      • Christo says:

        So, GNAT which pro-choice, pro-gay marriage republican, pro-job creation Republican will you be voting for??? We know well who you don’t like; therefore, I’m intrigued by who it would be that represents ALL THE THINGS for which you would vote.

      • Jayna says:

        I remember how suspiciously she was viewed when she was first elected senator. She was praised later as a very hard worker and someone who crossed the aisle to work on issues. This came from quite a few Republican senators back then. She worked hard for and gained respect in the senate.

      • Jayna says:

        “Lilacflowers says:
        April 13, 2015 at 10:00 am
        @Jayna, which grandmother? I had the misfortune of meeting their paternal grandmother and “enlightened about social issues” is not a term I would use. I do hope they are nicer and more compassionate than that woman.”

        @Lilacflowers, I probably misspoke regarding social issues. What I meant was that she was more moderate on certain issues back in the day when the Republican Party was changing and becoming an overzealous party, pushing religion to the forefront about abortion and homosexuality, she disagreed about making these things an issue, The Republican Party let the far right take over and has become embarrasing to what was once a great party. I thought her views back in the ’90s regarding what was becoming the platform for the GOP was right.

        “During her husband’s 1992 presidential campaign, Barbara Bush stated that abortion and homosexuality are personal matters and argued that the Republican Party platform should not take a stand on it, saying that “The personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions.” Her personal views on abortion were not known, although her friends reported at that time that she “privately supported abortion rights.” She explained, “I hate abortions, but I just could not make that choice for someone else.”

      • jane16 says:

        Hillary has always fought for things for women and children. I remember in the late 90s, when she was First Lady, she worked to get congress to pass the CHIP bill, which is for children of families who make too much for medicaid, but couldn’t afford life insurance. And it was passed and a lot of senators gave her credit for getting it passed. There are lots of other examples of her doing similar things on behalf of women and children in all of her various functions.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        You are so nasty. I’m not upset because I have this great candidate in the offing who represents everything I stand for. I am a pro-choice and pro- equal rights for everyone Democrat. I will not be voting for a Republican if I can possibly have a better choice. But YOU and other lazy, short-sighted Democrats are unwilling to say that Hillary doesn’t deserve the nomination. There doesn’t seem to be anyone decent in the entire country who is willing to run against her, because of this big wall of inevitability. Why? Because she lost last time and we pity her? Instead of facing the fact that Hillary is a liar, a cheater, and a HUGE mistake for this country, which was shown by her latest stunt alone, let alone her checkered past, you and my fellow Democrats are just lulled along by inertia and lack of a better idea and she’s going to be our nominee. All you care about is the chance to win. Or voting the party line. Your question to me says it all. Well congratulations, she’s probably going to win. But it will be the last Democratic win for a long, long time. Because she’ll pull another shady, scheming stunt and the focus of the country will not be on our problems, but on the latest investigation of her conduct. If we can’t learn anything from the past, we deserve what we get. And the pendulum will swing back so hard it will knock your head off. And we will deserve it. Because we were too fucking lazy and cowardly to put up an honorable, decent human being. THAT’s what I’m upset about.

        And by the way, I see nobody can answer the question about what she has accomplished besides getting elected. Because she hasn’t done anything notable.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “I see nobody can answer the question about what she has accomplished besides getting elected.”

        Look up what Condolezza Rice’s accomplishments were as Secretary of State. It is something generic like “helping to spread democracy in the middle east” (aka bringing Hamas to power through an election). It isn’t the kind of job where you typically have lists of completed tasks wrapped up in a bow.

        I also think it is insulting to say that people who think that she might be a decent candidate are doing so because they are “lazy” and “short sighted”. I call it realistic. We can moan about what our corrupt system presents as viable candidates, but until we change the system we can’t change the quality of candidates. Changes to the electoral process haven’t been made in time for the 2016 election, so we have to face the REALITY of where we are right now.

        I would love for another candidate that I am passionate about to come to the forefront. There is still plenty of time for that to happen. At the same time, we have to logically think about the consequences of our choices if she is the Democratic candidate. The nomination of Alito to the Supreme Court after the Gore v. Bush debacle should have opened a lot of eyes to the exact situation we could be facing come 2016.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        If someone like you, who has thought it through and is open to someone else, or has thought it through and simply believes she’s the best candidate votes for Hillary, that’s fine with me and I don’t think they are lazy. But so many people are just letting her happen in spite of her flaws because we don’t have any direction, we don’t know where to go from here and no other leader has emerged. I find that lazy and I think it’s a mistake that will take years and years to overcome. This is going to be the nastiest, most divisive presidential campaign we have ever seen, and the country is going to end up more divided than it already is. All because people don’t have the guts to reject her assumption that she’s entitled to be president.

        I get your point about the nature of her jobs, but I still disagree with you. She simply hasn’t done anything but support other people. She has not emerged as any kind of leader. That’s not just my opinion. It’s the opinion of the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, to name a few.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I think things can change so much before and during the primary season. We still have 9 months before the primary season even starts, and typically there are at least two front runners that jokey for lead position, sometimes 3.

        I understand the fear that she is going to unchallenged. That is not good for a democracy, and so I share your hope that there are some real challengers out there.

      • Christo says:

        All you need to do is Google to look up her accomplishments. I only ask that when you decide on your choice (if you make one at all), who is the person that meets your criteria? It is one thing to know what one doesn’t want amongst a list of choices, but then it is another to actually make a decision and commit to one’s vote. In life, we are often faced with many choices from the mundane (a multiple choice test), the banal (food choices at a buffet), or the more complex (which medication…which politician). It is rare that any CHOICE will be PERFECTLY what we want, but, OFTEN, we are faced with having to make a DECISION nonetheless. In most cases, there is almost always an element of compromise.

        So, you can throw away your test paper and leave your scantron unfilled, turn over your plate of food, refuse medication, and choose not to vote, but that is merely refraining from action rather than making a choice from what is available. An inability to make a choice will allow other voices to override yours because silence always gives way to sound in a democracy.

        In regard to her accomplishments, here are a few as a public servant—-not to mention those on a personal career level :

        1. As a U.S. senator, she was the first first lady to be elected to this office. She was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site’s redevelopment. She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues that 9/11 first responders were facing.

        2. After visiting soldiers in Iraq, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she cointroduced legislation to increase the size of the regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain and supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans. She also she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act.

        3. As our secretary of state, Clinton visited 112 countries, helping to repair a badly damaged U.S. reputation. She advocated an expanded role in global economic issues for the State Department and cited the need for an increased U.S. diplomatic presence, especially in Iraq, where the Defense Department had conducted diplomatic missions. Clinton unveiled the Global Hunger and Food Security program, prevailed over Vice President Biden to send an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, saved the signing of a Turkish-Armenian accord, and assisted the president with major decisions as to the U.S. position with regard to the revolution in Egypt and the decision to use military force in Libya.

      • jane16 says:

        Thanks Christo!

  15. RobN says:

    Politics aside, the most powerful thing at work on this cover is the photoshop.

  16. ryan says:

    Marco ruubbiiooo! Caliente!

  17. Debbie says:

    Good god, she looks like her mother. AND she took a bite out of her dress…

  18. Kelly says:

    Wow I am totally shocked with so many anti-Clinton and anti-Hillary comments. Unfortunate.