Chelsea Clinton ‘very difficult, unpleasant’ with Clinton Foundation employees


I went back and forth with myself about covering this Page Six story about Chelsea Clinton. On one side, Chelsea Clinton isn’t running for public office and we only know her name because her parents are two of the most well-known political figures in the country/world. On the other side, Chelsea isn’t a kid anymore and she’s embraced a public role quite a bit in the past few years, even perfectly timing her Elle Magazine cover to coincide with her mom’s announcement. It is my feeling that Hillary Clinton and Chelsea are on the same page this time around, and Chelsea is going to be a big part of Hillary’s presidential campaign. I’m sure baby Charlotte (Hillary’s grandbaby) will be a big part too. So with the good must come the bad, and we can always trust a Rupert Murdoch-owned press outlet to bring the bad.

Chelsea Clinton is so unpleasant to colleagues, she’s causing high turnover at the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, sources say. Several top staffers have left the foundation since Chelsea came on board as vice chairman in 2011.

“A lot of people left because she was there. A lot of people left because she didn’t want them there,” an insider told me. “She is very difficult.”

Onetime CEO Bruce Lindsey was pushed upstairs to the position of chairman of the board two years ago, so that Chelsea could bring in her McKinsey colleague Eric Braverman.

“He [Braverman] was her boy, but he tried to hire his own communications professional and actually tried to run the place. He didn’t understand that that wasn’t what he was supposed to be doing,” said my source. “He was pushed out.”

Matt McKenna was Chelsea’s spokesman, and then he wasn’t. Now he works for Uber. Ginny Ehrlich, the founding CEO of the Clinton Health Matters Initiative, now works for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Chelsea has embraced all the trappings of a corporate CEO, with a personal staff almost as big as her father’s. “He has six. She has five,” said my source.

None of this would surprise her former co-workers at McKinsey and NBC News. At both the management consulting firm and the network, co-workers allegedly were told they couldn’t approach Chelsea.

[From Page Six]

This really doesn’t sound good. And it also sounds really possible. A few years ago, Chelsea did a very interesting interview with Vogue, and I came away with that thinking she was more of “absent-minded professor” type, with a streak of her father’s flirtatiousness. But maybe she’s not so nice. Or maybe this is all just some standard foundation turnover and they’re finding a way to blame it all on Chelsea.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

207 Responses to “Chelsea Clinton ‘very difficult, unpleasant’ with Clinton Foundation employees”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. PHD Gossip says:

    I hate her since she gave an interview how she isnt interested in making money right after mom and dad bought her and her unemployed hubby a $10M condo.

    • Alex says:

      Yeah I remember her talking about becoming a doctor when she was at Stanford and then her first job out of college, most likely courtesy of Dad, was for the evil McKinsey & Co and then a hedge fund. You ONLY take jobs like that for the money and connections. You don’t take them if you have a soul.

      • Birdix says:

        Quite a few have washed out of pre-med at Stanford-they even have a major, human biology, that’s less intense than the pre-med classes. And soul-sucking or not, a job McKinsey is not out of reach for a recent Stanford grad. She used the Career planning and Placement Center, not her dad.

      • MelissaManifesto says:

        I did a stint at McKinsey, I didn’t stay for long but the experience was priceless. I do have a soul, and so do many people that work there. I’m sure Chelsea was treated differently for obvious reasons, However, I don’t understand how you expect to have the respect and collaboration of your colleagues if they cannot approach you.

      • EM says:

        She is like her parents. Superficial and greedy.

      • oneshot says:

        My roommate in college went to work for McKinsey, and considering she quit after her two year contract was up and went on to work for a human rights lawyer, I’d say she most definitely does have a soul. Though she did meet a ‘useful connection’ there – her future husband (who also quit to start his own business).

    • LadyL says:

      Her husband was an “evil” hedge fund manager. Made loads of money. He bought it.

      • PHD gossip says:

        except that he quit his job with the hedge fund right after his marriage, bummed around skiing for a while until Bill rounded up some ‘clients’ for him and he opened his own ‘fund’. Work? Not So Much.

    • LadyL says:

      He made and saved nothing. He’s earned nothing since the wedding. Bill is working to pay his bills. SURE.

    • GoNatural says:

      Wow – all the haters! Gotta ask why is the bar different for female and male leaders?

      Personally I don’t see anything wrong doing. Just pure gossip. Or maybe a story planted by McKinsey and Braverman? He could be cheesed off for having his nose slapped when he tried to start running the show. You have to wonder whether he had the authority to do that, or just took it.

  2. Senaber says:

    Never heard anything nasty about Chelsea before. I’m taking it with a grain of salt.

    As a side note, does EVERYONE work for Uber now? Christsakes.

    • Tristan says:

      Sounds like the typical Republican malicious gossip. What haven’t they accused these people of?

      • minx says:

        Page Six is the NYPost. Enough said.

      • mayamae says:

        Yep. It’s a preemptive strike against Hillary’s campaign. They’re just warming up. Bill and Hillary are free game, but I wish they’d leave Chelsea out of it. Unless, of course, they plan on going after Jeb Bush and his daughter with the history of drug addiction. Even that would be questionable, in my opinion.

    • Sarah says:

      Um….no. Not malicious GOP gossip. She is one of the worst people to work with on the speaker’s circuit. Extremely difficult and demanding. Rude to the point of hostility until the lights come on and then my, oh my, she suddenly turns into Bill’s daughter, charming everyone around. Lights go off and bam – back to being nasty. Literally – like a switch has been flipped.

  3. Mirn says:

    It would be hard NOT to be entitled in her circumstances. I’ve known people who worked Hillary’s police detail and they say she’s awful, too. Just rude and nasty; not pleasant at all.

    • Duchess of Corolla says:

      That wouldn’t surprise me. I would definitely not think of Hillary as “pleasant.”

      • taxi says:

        A family friend who retired from the Secret Service had White House detail during the Clinton years. Hillary was strongly disliked for her rudeness, arrogance, and her crudely-expressed demands. She dropped lots of F-bombs around the House & berated household staff, including the Service members assigned to the residence.
        No surprise if the apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

      • eurogirl70 says:

        With a reputation like the Secret Service (prostitutes/strippers in Columbia and Panama) not to mention the number of drunk driving incidents that have been white-washed or only recently come to light I really don’t care what they have to say with respect to the Clinton’s until they get their own house in order.

        When someone can climb the White House fence, open a door, run up the residential staircase and overpower a secret service agent, and the only thing that prevents a family attack is the fact that they weren’t home, I really don’t care what they (the Secret Service) have to say. Just like anyone in my town of D.C., with a government job, many get these gigs not because they are the best but because they have kissed the right amount and the right kind of ass.

        When you have DEA agents visiting prostitutes and participating in sex orgies paid for by the drug cartels, you might look at these accusations with a bit more perspective and to what the Services’ own motivations might be.

      • BooBooLaRue says:

        @eurogirl70 – well said, thank you.

      • holly hobby says:

        Not surprised and yes I believe it. I’m not going to make excuses for them just because I vote for the party and they are women. You can be circumspect in business without having to be overly mean to people – especially the help.

      • bluhare says:

        I don’t think Secret Service misbehavior justifies being rude and hostile to staff, who may or may not be employed by the Secret Service. I actually judge people by the way they treat people who serve them. Says a lot about their character, IMO.

      • Senaber says:

        Good. I don’t want a president who is “pleasant,” I want a president who is not afraid to kick ass and take names. Enough with worrying about the president being a good person. I just want a good president. You aren’t going to get both (Jimmy Carter, anyone?) because only politicians become president.

      • Dee Kay says:

        @Senaber: Thank you. A million upvotes. I do think that the judginess thrown Hillary Clinton and now Chelsea Clinton’s way has to do with their being women. I think Hillary is the best example of “When a woman is a tough as a man, she’s called a b**ch for doing the same things that gets a man called powerful and assertive.”

        I don’t care whether someone is pleasant to their staff or whatever. I believe all politicians, and celebrities, are basically narcissists and are on massive egotrips their entire lives and simply are not at all relatable or even much like most people. I want the best fu**ing narcissist a**hole around, the most qualified and the most capable and the smartest one, to be President. I don’t get a choice between Ghandi, Jesus, Mary Poppins, and Mother Teresa (who people said was horrific to her own staff, though great to the people she served) for POTUS. I get a choice between horrible people, evil people, and crazy people. I’m voting for the best horrible person for the job.

      • Timbuktu says:

        This is funny because I work with a lot of diplomats in DC, and many of them have met Hillary Clinton or were even on her detail when she traveled overseas, and everyone I talked to really likes her. Never heard 1 bad word about her, literally, although I have heard quite a few harsh words about, say, Madeleine Albright.

      • Dee Kay says:

        @Timbuktu: I know someone who is senior on Hillary’s campaign staff right now who says she’s amazing (warm, kind, generous, etc.). Maybe she’s only great sometimes or with some people. Maybe she’s great all the time. Maybe my acquaintance is lying and Hillary is a nightmare. I guess my main point is, I don’t really care how a candidate is “as a person.” I care how they are *as a candidate*. I’m going to vote for her not b/c I need or want her to be a wonderful person, but b/c I want her to be a good POTUS. Just like I don’t pay to see movie actors b/c I think they’re good people (I assume 99.8% of all actors are pretty awful as people), but because I think they’re *good actors.* Who a person is has very little to do with how well they do their job for their customers/clients/constituents.

    • doofus says:

      funny, I know someone who worked directly for Hillary, and that’s not what he has to say about her at all. and he’s not some party loyalist, he worked directly for Condi Rice, too. Also apparently a very professional and pleasant person. (don’t agree with her politics but I still have heard nice things about her.)

      and she’s another woman who was called a B, just because she had to be tough in her position with the “boys”.

      • Kitten says:

        Yeah this. I’m no fan of Hilary but I can’t help but wonder how much of this is just sexism. I’m not saying it definitely is, but I wonder…

      • anon321 says:

        I know a member of the secret service and he stated that Hillary is rude, nasty and obsessed with power. He also claimed that Hillary would physically and verbally attack Bill on a regular basis – in front of others. I didn’t believe it until two other agents stated the same.

      • doofus says:

        anon321, have you read eurogirl’s comment?

        could it possibly be that this agent (or agents) GAVE Hillary a reason to be “rude and nasty”? like, maybe, NOT doing their job so she had to say something? or driving drunk? and, as we all know, a WOMAN reprimanding an employee is a “rude and nasty” b*tch, not a responsible employer, right?

        as for her verbally or physically attacking Bill “on a regular basis, in front of others”….I’m sorry, I just do NOT buy that one at all. if it was truly regular behavior, perpetrated in front of others, we’d have heard about it, in detail. even Fox news hasn’t stooped to that one.

      • anon321 says:

        So, the secret service devil made her do it.

      • mememe says:

        The one detailed example they gave was that she fired someone for doing their job incorrectly. Sounds like “difficult” = vagina.

        And Condoleezza is a goddess.

      • mayamae says:

        My cousin is former military, and he has a good friend with the secret service. My cousin is a militant Republican, and even he doesn’t say Hillary was a bitch to her staff. He’s more likely to tell me that she’s a closeted lesbian.

        Anyway, his friend now works with Jill Biden, and says she’s a wonderful woman.

      • Timbuktu says:

        Hah, I just wrote something very much along the same lines, doofus! Even started it with same words.

        I’m sorry, but any “secret service agents” who are dishing so freely about people they work for do not have credibility in my book. Especially in this case, she was the wife of the president, yes, she was a public figure, but she was not, at the time, a politician, they are more or less dishing on her private life, not her professional behavior. Maybe they should worry less about who’s nasty and more about doing their job?

      • anon321 says:

        Condoleeza = war criminal

      • Mary says:

        +1 Timbuktu

    • ava7 says:

      Her Secret Service detail said she’s one of the most unpleasant person they’ve ever had the misfortune of working with. Arkansas police said the same. I’m not at all surprised people who’ve worked with Chelsea are saying the same. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

    • Tessa says:

      People who work for rich and famous should really take it down a notch with their expectations b/c a boss is a boss, not matter what is his or her name. They aren’t going to tip toe around people who work for them. They have business to take care of and if one can’t live without occasional absence of “please” and “thank you” they should NOT work with people.

      • Bonnie says:

        This is my first post here, and I could not resist. Ladies, my husband is USMC retired. His best friend worked the detail at the White House during the Clinton years. When a Marine says “Good Morning Mrs. Clinton” and that woman snaps and says “YOU DONT TALK TO ME OR LOOK AT ME!!!!” Something is inherently wrong with that person! And don’t tell me that the entitled apple didn’t fall far from the privileged apple tree. Those men would lay down their lives for the first family, and that is how they are treated?
        Semper Fi, but not for those idiots.

      • anon321 says:

        If you can’t be professional in all circumstances then don’t go into business or politics. I can’t believe the excuses that are made for these people.

      • Anne says:


        After hearing a number of stories like these, I’ve really begun to wonder about Hilary’s private demeanor. I just finished “Game Change”, the inside story of the 2008 election, and at times she comes across very badly – and this is from an author who made an effort to frame her behavior so it was understandable. He emphasized the stress she was under and her good intentions. But it was clear that, at that time, she was known to be widely disliked in the Democratic party and by a number of her colleagues in the Senate.

        I have to say, I may agree with her at times, but I don’t like her.

        The other takeaway from the book is that Bill Clinton has continued on with a series of affairs and, in 2008, her campaign was worried about how they would handle the inevitable story when it broke.

      • Bonnie says:

        Yes, agreed. I have to say, you should never disrespect military, or anyone willing to lay down their lives for you or any member of your family. They reek of entitlement, arrogance, and privilege!

    • Gemstone333 says:

      I worked for someone who shares a BFF with Chelsea. She’s known her for 15 years. According to her, Chelsea is reserved by nature, and it goes without saying she’s led a privileged and sheltered life. So many people try to befriend her because they want something- usually proximity to power – and she’s learned over time to keep her guard up. And I personally can understand this. My former boss also enjoys a close proximity to power, and said that whether consciously or unconsciously, people do act differently around Chelsea – putting her on pedestal, offering to do things for her etc… and it’s had an affect. She expects people to comply with all of her wishes, and has very high standards. She doesn’t quite understand that there’s a give and take in public life, because for most of her life the media laid off her, and she still expects them too. Another co-worker said she found Chelsea to be very standoffish to her personally, then quickly added- “Look at her life? I honestly don’t know how she couldn’t be unaffected by all of it”. I got the feeling that if you can offer something of value to Chelsea, you’ll find a warm person. Otherwise you’ll see someone who can’t wait to get away from you and isn’t interested in small talk or pleasantries etc. When the story first appeared, I rolled my eyes because it’s Page Six and the Daily Fail, but based on what I’ve heard from people who’ve spent a fair amount of time with Chelsea, I don’t think these stories are far off the mark.

      • Enid says:

        I went to high school with a good friend of Chelsea’s, and I have always heard she is very reserved, and struggles to connect with people. Look back at how she was treated by the media when she was a teenager. I can’t imagine she would be anything but guarded.

      • Gemstone333 says:

        I think reserved people get the short end of the stick. :) I personally wouldn’t want to be her. The expectations must be astronomical. Almost every article about her mentions running for President at some point. Everyone seems to have an opinion about her, her looks, and her career path. Personally, I’d go further and further into my shell if the majority of people I came in contact with wanted something from me. It will be interesting to see what happens on the campaign trail.

      • Jib says:

        I’d be reserved and cautious, too, if Rush Limbaugh called me the family dog when I was 12, and half of the country cheered and laughed at this.

      • kibbles says:

        I would believe this assessment of Chelsea. I have no beef with the Clintons and will probably vote for Hillary, but I am not delusional enough to think that Chelsea hasn’t been affected by her very unique, sheltered, and incredibly privileged life. I don’t think she is a diva, but I could always sense that she is a reserved and quiet person who enjoys her privacy. At the same time, of course she wants to help her mother and take the many advantages offered to her on a silver platter. I don’t think most of us can ever understand or imagine this kind of life. I don’t particularly feel sorry for Chelsea. I think her life is like the Royals; if they want the privileges of being filthy rich they have to deal with being in the public eye. However, I understand why she would not want to get close to most people who either put her on a pedestal or try to use her for her connections. It’s something 99.9% of us will never be able to comprehend or experience ourselves.

    • Dante says:

      That was what I heard as well. Hillary was rude and extremely off-putting. Apparently Madelaine Albright is very nice and well liked.

      • Timbuktu says:

        I’ve heard the exact opposite. In fact, I’ve heard that Madeleine Albright was the worst Secretary of State in terms of how she treated her subordinates, apparently, most diplomats who worked under her have some story to tell about her being rude. And this is second hand: the people I talk about personally met Albright, and they personally told me those stories.
        Goes to show how much “rumors” can be trusted.

      • Dante says:

        I can’t speak to how the folks at the State Department got along with her. The person was Secret Service, not State Department. Maybe she had a much different relationship with those who provided her security detail.

      • Timbuktu says:

        I find it hard to believe that Hillary reserved the worst treatment just for the Secret Service. You know, the very people who’d have to take a bullet for her? I think that it is very hard for powerful people to differentiate between subordinates: they are either well-mannered, or they aren’t. I seriously doubt that she’d treat some low-level diplomat much different than an agent.
        Besides, during her years as the Secretary of State, she was protected by Diplomatic Security, not Secret Service, and I know a few DS agents as well.

      • Helena Havelock says:

        “That was what I heard as well”? Well, there you go. It must be true if you heard it.

        About 20 yrs. ago Hillary came to my church, Glide Memorial, in San Francisco. She was absolutely delightful, charming, down to earth and very funny. She has gotten a raw deal from the media since Bill first began his presidential race and the way the media treated her when she and Obama were were opponents in the primaries was shockingly appalling.

        I’ve never heard anything positive said about Madeleine Albright and, although she can’t do much about the face she was born with, she certainly appears to be shrew-like. However, until I’ve actually met someone I would certainly not presume to know them based on the opinion of someone else. Face it, you “can’t speak to how the folks at the State Dept. got along with her”, nor can you speak to how the folks at Secret Service got along with her. You can’t really speak to how anyone gets along with her or how she gets along with them, until and unless you know her personally and have been in her company for an extended period of time.

  4. teatimeiscoming says:

    Arent all of those adjectives just code for “female boss”? And those kinds of organizations have high turnover rates anyway.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Yes, they do. And one of the guys they mentioned as being shoved out of the way was pushed UP into a higher position.

    • Samtha says:

      Exactly my thought–this would not be a story if she were a man.

    • doofus says:

      “Arent all of those adjectives just code for “female boss”? ”

      yes. If you’re running a foundation, you have to be tough. and any woman who acts tough (shocking coming from a Murdoch source) is a b*tch, apparently.

      because men are confident, they go after what they want…and women are b*tches.

    • Birdix says:

      I read it that way too. And it irritates me just as much. I wonder what the knee-jerk narrative would be if the Clintons had a son.

      • Betsy says:

        Nope. Then they’d be asking if he, too, would be presidential material one day. But since Chelsea is a woman… what a b, right?

    • PennyLane says:

      Which she has no experience being.

      Put someone with zero management experience – but a total lock on their job because of Mommy and Daddy – into a management position and you’ll see situations like this.

      The mess that’s being described isn’t due to gender discrimination; it’s the obvious and predicable outcome of blatant nepotism.

      • ava7 says:

        Ohhhhh I agree with you so much!!! I saw this happen when the owner of the company I work for put his niece in a senior management position that she was in no way qualified for. She really was not only not equipped to do the job but was a nightmare to work for. She was really belittling and mean to the staff. And when people started filing complaints and threatening to leave, she said all of the things the above commenters said! That if she was a man no one would complain, that she was just “tough to get good results”, etc. etc. The owner wisely got rid of the niece because he was facing losing some of his employees and the morale was just so bad. So now, unfortunately, I just want to roll my eyes when I hear the “If she was a man” argument.

      • imqrious2 says:


    • Kitten says:

      Mmm hmmm. Sure seems like it.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I agree. People changing positions or jobs over the course of 4 years isn’t exactly shocking or a sign of improper treatment of employees.

  5. bette says:

    Not a surprise, this is the woman who as a teenager called the Secret Service detail “pigs” to their faces. She’s just like her mother. She acts like royalty and doesn’t answer any questions.

    • Luca76 says:

      I don’t think it’s fair to judge someone by what they said as a teenager.
      I really think that’s a low blow.

      • angie says:

        I disagree–I think that by the time you hit your teens you’ve learned your manners, whether good or bad, and are accountable for how you treat people.

    • Duchess of Corolla says:


    • Samtha says:

      I don’t know. I have the most well-behaved, sweet stepdaughter…90% of the time. 10% of the time, she’s a moody hormonal teenage brat.

      Plus, remember back to when you were a teenager…and then imagine having a team of grown men following you around all the time and most likely reporting back on you to your parents. Would that not chafe after a while? What would it be like to try to go to a party–would you even get invited to parties? Imagine going on dates with a security detail.

      Is it really inconceivable that a teen (whose frontal lobe isn’t even fully developed yet) might get frustrated and call someone a name in those circumstances? Even the sweetest kid might snap.

    • Bridget says:

      In the same way that I think it’s unfair to judge the Bush twins for their mild teenage shenanigans, I think it ‘s unfair to judge Chelsea off of some mild teenage rebellion. Being a “First Child” is notoriously stifling, and if the worst she does is call someone a name I think it’s awfully petty to hold it against her 2 decades later.

      • Luca76 says:

        I mostly agree except the problem with the Bush girls were that the SS had to avoid being involved in their underage drinking. So that issue was of some public interest.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        And the Bush twins were 18 when their father took office.

    • Anne says:

      Funny, when I use the word royal, I usually think of someone exceptionally well-mannered, but I get what you mean.

    • Helena Havelock says:

      And were you there when she allegedly called the SS detail “pigs”, or is this just something you heard or read?

  6. Lucy2 says:

    I don’t know about how she is, but I would imagine that a lot of people work for the Clinton foundation as a springboard to something else in the corporate world- looks good on a resume but you’re not going to make big money there, right?

    • Kylie says:

      Exactly, non profits don’t pay very well. And most of the people now seem to be in better jobs.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        Non profits can pay well–at least some do. (I’m not talking about the local food bank here….I’m talking large, national non profits.) I retired at the age of 56 after 20 years for one. Because they are private, they don’t off stock options or other mega capital accumulation / retirement vehciles…so they tend to pay higher in base and some incentives. Remember–large non profits want good people, and to get good people they have to pay as they are competing for the best and the brightest. THe salaries of the nonprofit execs are available online at in case anyone has enough interest to look up the Clinton Foundation pay practices. That wouldn’t be me. Too early in am, need more coffee.

    • OhDear says:

      It read like typical job turnover. Ooh, four people who used to work for her found other positions in the four years that she was there! Escandale!

  7. Sixer says:

    As a Brit, I’m here to tell you with the voice of experience that heritable dynasties are a bad thing. Doesn’t really matter if the inheritees are nice or nasty; that’s just a distraction. That is all!

    • anon321 says:

      Although there are several examples of father/son holding the office of POTUS, the Founding Fathers never intended to have familial dynasties in that position nor is it in our best interests that they all seem to graduate from the same university.

    • Anne tommy says:

      The difference of course Sixer is that the Americans get to vote for or against the next one in the dynasty. In the UK it’s just the luck of the genes…and re the discussion further up, it is possible to be a tough and confident woman without being a bitch. I have worked for both. Sometimes women are called bitches because they are.

      • Anne tommy says:

        Not saying Hilary is a bitch BTW. She’s impressive in public, who can say In private. Am equally ignorant about Chelsea’s BQ ( bitchiness quotient)

  8. Jessica says:

    Not surprising and not the first time it’s been said. Bill is known to be the only member of that family with social skills when the cameras stop rolling and the reporters leave, it’s why Hillary tolerates his history of sexually abusing women (let’s not call it womanising or flirting please, he’s a very well documented abuser). She needs his charm and way with words just as much as he needed her to get him past all the allegations against him.

    Chelsea is very much a public figure these days, she’s not just supporting her mom occasionally, she’s campaigning like crazy and building her own profile. IMO she’s been fair game for a while.

    • Betsy says:

      “Well documented” sexual abuse? Hmm.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        Here is the deal: His affair with Monica Lewinsky was sexual harassment and abusive. She was 21. He had the power. She did not. They weren’t equals. He was her boss and with that power was legally (and of course morally) obligated to not act on any of her ovetures and in fact to stop them and reprimand her up to and including termination. He did not do what would have been expected of him in any corporate office in the USA today.

        If it happened in corporate America, she could have sued him and won handedly. The power was disproportionate to the point of absurdity. It wasn’t a sexual relationship between equals. The fact he didn’t respond appropriately to not let it happen, but encouraged it and participated in it over time was very abusive.

        Not a popular opinion on him Im sure, but ask any employment lawyer–I’m quite on target with my assessment of what would happen if this scenario played out at Xerox.

      • anon321 says:

        Monica Lewinsky had a history of using men in her efforts to reach her goals, she was a wise 21 year old woman (the majority of people who spill something on a dress would immediately take it to the dry cleaner.) She willingly crawled under the desk in the Oval Office and gave the leader of the free world a blow job. She could have complained but why would she? She thought that blue dress would take her straight to the top.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        @anon321…..whether that is true or not is immaterial to the matter of sexual harassment in employment setting. She was 21; he was not. THe disproportionate allocation of power between boss and subordinate is established by case law, thereby stating you simply cannot have a freely consensual relationship between boss and subordinate. THe power of the boss comes with expectations of not dipping your wick in the company inkwell. Or wiping it on her blue dress either.

        And again….the concept of allocation of power between the two parties is laughable in this particular case.

      • LAK says:

        Anon321: Monica didn’t decide to keep that dress all on her own. She told Linda Tripp that she had a dirty dress that she was going to take to the drycleaners and Linda talked her into saving the dress as evidence. Linda Tripp had prior beef with the Clintons where she’d lost for lack of evidence. Monica was a gift from Heaven to Linda. She set about entrapping the Clintons via Monica and ensuring Monica had every bit of evidence to back up her claim. She recorded conversations and encouraged Monica to talk. She’s the one who reported Monica to Ken Starr and worked with him to ensure Monica didn’t destroy evidence.

        It’s a pity that Linda Tripp is all forgotten whilst Monica lives on in infamy.

        Also it’s important to remember that Monica only talked after Ken Starr threatened her family and her. Plus she was deposed as a hostile witness.

      • bluhare says:

        Thank you for mentioning Linda Tripp, LAK. Without her, I doubt we’d know much about Monica Lewinsky at all. It’s all forgotten that Monica was pushed into it to serve another’s agenda.

        Please note that I don’t condone what Clinton did, it’s just that Tripp adds a different dimension to it. Whatever “it” means. :)

      • anon321 says:

        Sexual harassment in this case wouldn’t pass muster. Monica had an affair with a teacher from her high school, apparently at the same time she was screwing around with POTUS. Twenty-one is an adult, she knew what she was doing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

      • K says:

        Wait, anon321, you’re saying a CLEAR case of sexual abuse – a teacher, for God’s sake – doesn’t, in your view, make someone more likely to become victim to a second predatory approach? Seriously? When they are still only 21 years old? And you don’t think it made her likelier to end up victimised by a “friend” intent on using her, like Linda Tripp?

        As for “screwing around” with Clinton, well, part of his reason for denying they had sex was that he was the only one to orgasm. He never gave her one from deliberate decision and she doesn’t appear to have thought that grossly exploitative and selfish: that was how “equal” and balanced the situation was. Her life was wrecked before it even properly began – she was a kid, who belonged in college making a million stupid choices nobody would ever have known about. No 21 year old deserves that.

        I’m sorry but if that is truly your understanding of the dynamics of abusive relationships, and what they do to a person’s sense of self and their self-esteem, then the naive one is you.

      • Dirty Martini says:

        What K said.

      • anon321 says:

        Nope. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing and what she was trying to achieve in doing it.

    • Jaded says:

      Remember Paula Jones? He was still Governor of Arkansas at the time but he had her brought to his hotel room on the pretext of work, then propositioned her and exposed himself. He ended up paying her a sizable settlement but it was eaten up by her legal bills. In any event there was enough traction through her going public after he became President to show to the court a pattern of behavior by Clinton that involved his allegedly repeatedly becoming sexually involved with state or government employees. Jones’s lawyers subpoenaed women they suspected Clinton had had affairs with, one of whom was Monica Lewinsky, and we all know how that turned out.

      I wouldn’t classify him as a serial sexual abuser but he certainly used his position as Governor, then President, to be aggressive in his propositioning of women while Hillary turned a blind eye.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Paula Jones LOST her case. The settlement was on one of her many appeals to get rid of it. And as an attorney, I can say that people settle lawsuits all the time because it can be cheaper than winning. The settlements usually state that no wrongdoing is admitted.

  9. lowercaselois says:

    I have worked for many non profits and there really is a high turnover rate, because of the lower salaries , sometimes no benefits and like profit making companies ,there is politics. You get tired of trying to save the world and then you move on.

    • Mrs. Darcy says:

      Me too, I worked for a couple in NY and they were hands down the worst work environments, way more stressful than super corporate places even.

  10. AmandaPanda says:

    That is categorically untrue re McKinsey telling people they couldn’t approach her. 100% made up.

    I don’t understand what it means by hiring Eric as CEO “but he didn’t understand he wasn’t there to run the place”. What does a CEO do then?

    • Lucy2 says:

      Good point- it’s not like they hired him as an assistant! And the guy he “pushed out” got promoted? Some of these claims are a bit ridiculous.

    • SamiHami says:

      I’m curious how you know that it’s “categorically untrue.” Did you work there? Do you have some inside info? I ask because it’s pretty well known that she is incredibly unpleasant and condescending to others.

  11. loud noises says:

    i couldn’t help but think about selina meyers and catherine while reading this.

    anyway, i wouldn’t blame either hilary or chelsea to be a bit difficult, but especially hilary. getting up to the top tier of political power in a heavily misogynistic environment? yeah she’s gotta be a fucking pitbull, and chelsea probably picked some of that up.

  12. mimif says:

    I’m just here for Sixer, but I posted in le wrong spot. The End.

    • Sixer says:

      If you’re going to stalk me, at least aim good, girl. It’s, like, a prerequisite. :P

      PS: I have chili chocolate. Want some?

  13. NewWester says:

    Whether this is true or not I can just see this as the start of negative stories regarding the Clinton family now that Hilary has decided to run for President. This is nothing ,wait until the stories about Bill start coming out.

    • anon321 says:

      Hillary has always had a reputation for being extremely difficult. This is nothing new.

  14. It is what it is says:

    Can Celebitchy stop with the overt pro Hillary stuff? It’s offensive

    • Mirn says:

      How is this “pro” Hillary? This is the opposite of that …

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I don’t understand how this is pro-Hillary, either.

    • kcarp says:

      My mind is blown that the trashiness of Bristol Palin is free game but let’s tip toe around Chelsea and kinda sorta blame Rupert Murdoch for publishing this.

      Anyone who doesn’t see this double standard will never understand.

      Non-Profit? The only one not making money at that place may be the janitor.

      • Megan says:


      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I loathe Hillary, and I think the Clinton foundation is a total scam slush fund for Hillary’s campaign, but I still don’t see this as pro-Hillary. There’s a big difference between the hillbilly trash fights Bristol and the rest of the Palins publicly engage in for the world to catch on video and a rumor that Chelsea is unpleasant to coworkers. I’d call that responsible on the part of Celebitchy, not biased.

      • doofus says:

        yeah, I gotta echo GNAT here…even if true, this (alleged) behavior of Chelsea does not equate to the…yes, trashiness, of the Palin family.

        Being a b*tch while running a foundation or company is not on par with getting into a drunken brawl while crashing a party with your mother, who was once a VP candidate. If Chelsea and Hillary get into a liquor-induced brawl and the media sweeps it under the rug, then I’d agree with a double standard.

        the problem that I (and others, I suspect) have with this story is that it’s kind of a non-story…it’s clearly someone with an agenda trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, one of the people that was “pushed out” was actually promoted!

      • K says:

        I think there was photographic evidence and a police report for a mass brawl on the one hand, and anonymous hearsay gossip for a Murdoch rag on the other. There’s a massive difference between a reality show where a mother giggles as her toddler swears, and a few carefully staged images of a swish wedding and some closely vetted magazine interviews with the likes of Vogue. And whatever you think of either family (my opinion is not high on either, frankly) one daughter had a baby with a no-hoper as a teenager, and made her cash through selling her life to the highest bidding reality show/magazine, and the other worked through various top universities and then firms to polish her resume – and sure, she had a massive head start, but so did Bristol, and look what she did with it.

        I have no idea what Chelsea is like as a person, but I have a lot more notion about Bristol. And that accounts for the difference in approach. No?

      • Amy says:

        Yep! My thoughts, exactly.

    • minx says:

      This is hardly pro-Hillary.

    • Betsy says:

      This is not pro-Hillary. And even if it were, good. There are tons and tons of sites – including pretty much of all mainstream media – that are anti-Democrat, anti-liberal,a nti-Progressive.

    • Grace says:

      How is this pro-Hillary?

    • Jules says:

      You don’t like it, stop coming to this site.

  15. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I don’t know about this. Possibly she has learned very bad habits as to how to treat people from both of her parents, who use and discard people like soap. But it also sounds like office politics. I worked for a not-for-profit once and let me tell you, it was one of the nastiest, back-biteyest, throat stabbiest places I’ve ever been in, and I worked in law firms for twenty-five years. People can’t shine by making money as they do in the private sector, so they get a death grip on their little turf and will mow anybody down if they see them as a threat. I wasn’t involved in anything major after my first day, when the woman I was hired to work for told me that I was hired without her permission (by her superior and rival) and she had no interest in training or working with me, so don’t get in her way. So I didn’t because I switched departments that day. But the things I saw were unbelievable. So this could be someone or several people who resent Chelsea because she’s stepping on their toes somehow.

    • Birdix says:

      Agreed. I worked for a nonprofit arts organization and there was much more drama offstage than on. A few times a day, I’d slowly lower myself below the top of my computer screen, hoping people would forget I was there when the passive aggressive barbs signaling the next power struggle started flying.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        It was a nonstop soap opera. Did you escape? I did.

      • Birdix says:

        yes, thankfully! I’m still loosely connected with the organization–enough to know it’s still nuts 15 years later.

    • MelissaManifesto says:

      Thanks GNAT for sharing your experience. I was always under the impression that, because of their primary goal which is to help people, not-for-profits were pleasant environments to work in.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        That’s what I thought, too, before is worked for one. Since then, I have heard so many other people say the same.

    • Crumpet says:

      Lord, how exhausting! Where do people find the energy for that stuff? Honestly.

  16. Kylie says:

    This is a sexist story. Over the course of four years people got new jobs. How is that scandalous? And almost all.of them went on to a more prestigious position. Chelsea can do that for me any day.

  17. shannon says:

    Personality with looks to match. The “work” she had done did not do her any favors.

  18. Jen43 says:

    Those are some really unflattering pictures. I take this with a grain of salt. I would hope that Chelsea has some of her father’s charm and people skills.

  19. Jayna says:

    Trying to take down the Clintons has been going on for months. Nothing new, just another hatchet story to stop the momentum of Hilary getting the nomination.

  20. Anastasia says:

    Of course these stories start. Hillary is running, so now the smear jobs on Chelsea begin. Typical, and predictable.

    And anyone insulting her looks is just beneath contempt.

  21. Kat says:

    I worked at McKinsey and know Eric. He’s a great guy and McKinsey is not evil. Everyone always had great things to say about Chelsea too.

  22. Christin says:

    Several years ago, she was part of a team that did consulting work for our company. I don’t recall specific details of her being rude, but more than one person who worked with this team indicated she was treated differently and interactions with her were very limited, if not outright prohibited.

    Those reports changed my perception of her, because she could have overruled any of the kid glove, special flower treatment her employer was giving her or seeing she received.

    • Kat says:

      I was in DC when I worked for McKinsey and Chelsea was in the NY office but a good friend of mine ran global events for us and interacted with her a lot. He’s the most down to earth guy ever and he said she was so nice and relaxed and he really enjoyed working with her.

      • LAK says:

        It’s possible for these 2 things to be true. That she was kept to a small set of people within her organisation and that she was down to earth and personable with the people she *did* work with.

      • Christin says:

        I can see (in a way) that if you are on a consulting job, and you don’t know the demeanor of the people you will be meeting on a site visit, maybe it would be a little disconcerting. She just wasn’t a huge public figure at the time (it was before Hilary’s run and after Bill’s drama), and I didn’t see why it was a big deal since she was with a team of professionals engaged by a large company with equally professional people.

        Yet (allegedly) someone on her side requested everything about her being a part of the visit (a paid engagement, mind you) be hush-hush until it was over, as if there would have been masses of people trying to talk to her.

    • kibbles says:

      This might be due to the fault of her parents who tried to shelter her from media scrutiny and the public eye since childhood into much of her adult life. We only started to see Chelsea more often in the last few years. I know she is the Clinton’s only daughter and they must have been super protective of her, but they probably should have given her more opportunities to just be a normal person. I don’t know if that could have ever happened as Chelsea never had a normal life after her father became POTUS.

  23. bettyrose says:

    I really forgot her baby’s name was Charlotte. Not Princess Charlotte. Madam President Charlotte.

  24. lisa says:

    it would be hard not to be an entitled snot if you never had to accomplish anything on your own. i can see how she might be somewhat goopy, born on third thinking she hit a triple.

    • bettyrose says:

      Alternatively, when you have uber successful parents, who themselves were not born into privilege (well, Hillary was somewhat but not at Bush level), there’s a lot of pressure to prove yourself. Yeah she had plenty of opportunity to attend all the best schools, but she also watched her father’s impeachment hearings along with her college dorm mates. When it comes to Chelsea, her privilege is balanced by her nightmare adolescence. She was treated horribly by the press, endured the Lewinsky scandal as a college freshman, and had plenty of haters who would’ve delighted in her failure. Chelsea has not lived such an enviable existence.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I always felt so sorry for her during that time. To see your father hurt your mother that way when she obviously loved them both, not to mention having your father’s sex life details in all the papers, all the cigar jokes, ugh…it must have been so painful.

      • lisa says:

        yes, it’s interesting she has basically coasted on their coattails since then. after all that, i can see a lot of people going in a completely different direction. but an easy life is a hard thing to turn down.

      • taxi says:

        Chelsea & her privacy were well protected at Stanford, where I worked. Her parents visited her here often. Everyone knew about some trips because traffic in surrounding towns was blocked & rerouted plus they’d rent an entire hotel to house 100+ aides & Secret Service detail.
        There were also lots of stealth visits, which only certain (university) president’s admins knew about. Bill was always courteous & charming, and always thanked staff for facilitating these. Hillary? Not so much. One or the other of her parents were in & out on visits about once a month. Bill more often than Hill.

      • bluhare says:

        Let’s not forget Curtis Sliwa getting yelled at by his mom for saying Chelsea looked like she’d been hit with a bag full of nickels. That poor girl (and yes she was — she was in her early teens at the time I think) had so much stuff said about how she looked, etc. etc. it was awful.

    • Samtha says:

      I remember Rush Limbaugh making comments about her appearance when she was only thirteen. Terrible.

      • doofus says:

        yeah, go after a teenage girl when you don’t like her parents’ politics.

        tells you all you need to know about Rush “execute all drug addicts! (except for me and my hillbilly heroin)” Limbaugh. the man is lower than pond scum.

      • taxi says:

        Many criticized Amy Carter pretty unmercifully, too. She was even younger than Chelsea.

      • Christin says:

        Speaking of Amy — She has managed to lead a pretty low-key, mostly drama-free life. Yet, as noted above, she was teased as much if not more than Chelsea. Plus her father has been ridiculed ever since he left the WH.

  25. Snappyfish says:

    I was at the Clinton Global initiative conference is CA 4 years ago. Only Chelsea’s program was run on time & on point. She was pleasant to all the students (college level) & v professional.

  26. LadyL says:

    Gave speeches last time her mother ran and lost the nomination for president, worked for NBC and hosted fund raisers BUT has only recently become a public person? Love this blogs double standard.

  27. FingerBinger says:

    As much as I dislike all of the Clintons I’m little bit skeptical of this story. This is a story from Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper.

  28. Messenger says:

    the republicans are going to go after hillary with everything they’ve got and chelsea is fair game. this is not news. we all lived through whitewter did we not? listen up people on the fence politically, do not, i repeat do not let another republican sit in the white house. we have someone who is willing to fight the good fight for eight more years. let us take her up on her offer. republican ideology scares me and i do not scare easily.

  29. Cricket says:

    I think her persona as a private person went out the window when she and hubby and baby and dog did pap stroll in NYC day her mom announced..

    I don’t know the clintons or had any interaction with them. I have however, had the ‘pleasure’ of speaking to her father in law. He was the most obnoxious name dropper I’ve ever had to encounter. To say he was rude, irate is not strong enough. This was before he went to jail for fraud. He used his wife’s name very hard to get out of paying a bill. Like because of who she was (a local politician in PA) he was exempt from paying his bills.

    I would not doubt if Chelsea’s marriage was a business agreement between families.

    • sills says:

      I always wondered that about Chelsea’s marriage, especially when right after the wedding her husband quit his job and disappeared to Colorado to be a ski bum or something. The scandal rags were buzzing about it for days and then poof, down the memory hole… Am I misremembering? I always thought that was so odd.

      • Cricket says:

        Nope. You remember correctly. He did a runaway husband act to snow board or something. His parents are both a piece of work so it seems like a match made in political hell.

  30. briargal says:

    If this is true, it sounds like the apple didn’t fall too far from the “mom’s side” of the tree!!

    • judyjudyjudy says:

      Hilary Clinton has an excellent reputation for her interpersonal skills. But keep drinking that kool aid.

  31. kri says:

    This family is as unlikeable as the House Lying Asses family. The Clintons have no integrity, no class and they are and always have been out for themselves.

    • Kelly says:

      Change Clinton to Bush and you’re dead right.

      • Cricket says:

        You do realize how close the Clinton and Bush families are, right? Jenna Bush announced Hillary at some awards thing and raved about how close both families are… Don’t let the D or R fool you! At the end of the day, many are the same and laugh at the deception being one party vs. the other.

      • MrsB says:

        Exactly, Cricket! I can’t understand how more people don’t realize this. I want to laugh at people who are so stupidly loyal to one party, but it irritates me too much *sigh*

      • Crumpet says:

        Cricket, I like hearing stories like that. Rabid loyalty to any institution is a frightening thing. But I guess it’s easier than thinking things through on your own, eh?

  32. Rhiley says:

    Eh, you know Witch, Bitch, or Other… women in charge can only be one of the three.

    • anon321 says:

      We can be knowledgeable, professional and hard working. Please don’t say that we must lower ourselves to be successful.

  33. GossipyMama82 says:

    Can’t speak to this story, but I have “trusted sources” who know the Clintons well through mutual close friends. I think the years in the spotlight as an awkward teen and struggles to really find a solid career path in her adult years (she’s job hopped quite a bit), framed by her parents standing, have been tough on Chelsea. She’s polite, but not particularly warm or fun. She conducts herself like she has something to prove and not the type of person whose company you’d actively seek. Her husband, on the other hand, is very personable, funny, and easy to get along with- people love him.

    Also want to add that she is soooo much prettier in person! She’s not very photogenic, so it’s crazy when you see her up close. Nice hair and cute figure too!

    • doofus says:

      “Also want to add that she is soooo much prettier in person!”

      ditto for Hillary. I never considered her mother beautiful, or even “pretty”, really. Handsome is a good word, I think…but when I met her, that was one of the first things that went through my mind (not proudly…)…”wow, she’s so much prettier in person.”

    • Evie says:

      Chelsea “struggled to find a solid career path?” We commoners should all have such struggles. Thanks to the Clinton family name, some doofus at NBC decided to pay her $600K annually to do puff pieces and feel good stories like interviewing the Geico Gecko — despite the fact that she has NO EXPERIENCE in broadcasting or journalism. Chelsea only did about 12 stories — all of them utterly forgettable. That works about to about $50K a story. NBC was paying this neophyte an exorbitant salary at a time when the network was pink slipping lots of rank and file workers. It would be laughable except for the fact that it’s insulting to hard working journalists.

      Here’s a story from the Washington Post, which is not a Murdoch owned publication.

  34. pk says:

    I hope this isn’t true. I’ve always felt that in spite of their faults, Bill and Hilary did a good job raising Chelsea.

  35. Sarafrass says:

    Oh my gosh! Over the course of four years, several people have changed positions and one got a promotion?!!! Scandal! This is a little bit of a sexist trope. As strong woman (whether you like her or not) gets called difficult and normal staff turn over (not for profits usually have high turnover as people leave for better paying positions) get blamed on her. And this is a story?

  36. LAK says:

    She seems so drama free that I feel genuinely disappointed to hear that she’s not such a pleasant person behind the scenes.

  37. Jules says:

    I’m automatically suspicious whenever a woman is labeled “difficult.”

  38. Brittney B says:

    There are so many “it’s well known that she’s __”/”of course she’s ___” comments — and this story is so obviously fueled by sexist double standards — that I have to chime in.

    I’ve never met Chelsea, but my cousin lived across the hall from her at Stanford. If we’re judging her by her teenage comments, then surely her college years will apply too? Because my cousin had nothing but positive things to say about Chelsea, and she came from a Republican family that loathed Bill. Apparently Chelsea was humble, quiet, sweet, and tried hard to be inconspicuous. But when it came to projects, papers, and presentations, she was tenacious.

    It’s absolutely true that this story wouldn’t exist if she were a guy. I’m a progressive liberal who doesn’t have much faith in Hilary, but I’m pretty sure I’ll end up defending her for the next year and a half, because this is just the beginning of the sexist “b****”/”demanding”/”arrogant”/”bossy” accusations. Of course her daughter’s getting it too. When’s the last time you heard a male politician or celebrity skewered in the press for being too ambitious, commanding too much authority at work, or making unpopular hiring decisions (…that were actually promotions)? Yeah. I didn’t think so.

    • Jayna says:

      Amen with the whole bitch, bitchy, arrogant, etc. I remember when Hillary was running even the liberal talking heads began to pull sexist crap about her when it was clear they were rooting for Obama. The sexist treatment she received boggled my mind and made me appreciate how tough she was during the campaign. The things said about Hillary, down to derogatory comments made about her pantsuits during campaigning, would never be thought of in terms of a male running for president. Hillary is tougher than most of the wimps that call themselves men that have and will run for President. Go, HIllary.

    • mollie says:

      Sick and tired of reading about female bosses being difficult and bitchy.
      She’s a strong woman.
      If she’s a jerk, it will come out in time, but the timing of this particular piece is hilariously suspect.

  39. ArkyLady says:

    Chelsea was “entitled” even as a child. I remember, when Bill was our governor, how bratty she was during try-outs and rehearsals for The Nutcracker. She was a bully. That was the only time I was around her, and that was enough for me.

    • Andrea says:

      Okay, this is by far the most ridiculous comment. I grew up to be a lovely person, as a child I was a total terror!

  40. Wren33 says:

    I imagine it must be hard to find your own career when you are the child of uber-successful and famous parents. You just don’t have the same flexibility to work as a temp for the first couple years after school, and career hop and fail without a lot of scrutiny. You are probably pushed into a lot of positions you don’t have the experience or liking for. On the one hand she is getting things she doesn’t deserve, but on the other hand the world (or her parents) is just not going to let her be a random bank teller in a small city somewhere.

  41. Jayna says:

    I love that the Clintons named their daughter after the Joni Mitchell song “Chelsea Morning.”

  42. judyjudyjudy says:

    Oh dear, pulling the trigger already on the election vileness.

    If I sell NY Post ads do I get to run up to boss daddy Rupert Murdoch and shoot the bleep?

    Any body else finding anything sexist about this?

    Who said any woman has to be “Approachable”? Or “Nice”? or “Sweet”?

    Anna Wintour isn’t and she has been major league promoted to run all the Conde Nast magazines, not just Vogue.

    • CatFoodJunkie says:

      I don’t think anybody is saying she has to be nice, per se, but certainty she should exhibit good manners, and basic politeness is key. there’s a big difference between hard-charging and aggressive, and rude and condescending.

      • judyjudyjudy says:

        Busy NYers get sh&t done. They don’t hold hands and give out flowers. This story is sexist and stupid.

    • Tessa says:

      My thoughts exactly!

  43. tricklady says:

    And the Bush twins got away with their hijinx because they are pretty.

  44. S says:

    No way – this is complete nonsense.

  45. Tessa says:

    People expect so much from celebrities it’s ridiculous! They are not gods. The main point I get from reading stories about working/going to school/stumbling on a street with Chelsea here is that she is a reserved and guarded person. That sounds normal for someone who has had the kind of life she had. Oh, she isn’t extra nice to others! How dare she! Somehow we can forgive peasants (hey, Gwynnie!) for being grumpy and distant, but famous people have to be constantly “ON,” gracious, kind, warm, attentive. I say BS! Expecting her to be anything but what she is simply because of her last name is ridiculous.

  46. mollie says:

    Totally bogus.
    Sorry, not buying the whole “she’s a meanie” routine about a female exec.
    Especially a story that turns up during a political run by her mother.

  47. KayLastima says:

    I will NEVER forget Bill slapping the podium and declaring that he did not have sex “with that woman”. He could not even make her human by saying her name. But the scorched earth policy that Hillary led against the women who were with Bill voluntarily and the women he harassed was the ugliest thing I had seen. Not only did she dig up every little piece of info on the women including known associates, psyche or counseling visits, how much they imbibed, their salary and that of their spouse, anything on their children, details on where they grew up and their home life, their sex life with their spouses or others, etc., etc., etc. It is known that she and her surrogates used power plays against these women to harass them and their employers and she used the White House machine to dig up info on them to scare them and silence them. To say that she had a scorched earth policy would be mild. SHE ruined the lives of several women and their families because Bill couldn’t keep it in his pants and it was costing her the pay out for not divorcing Bill, of running for president and using all of Bill’s influence and ability to raise funds for a campaign. She was vile, she was loathsome, she was cruel, she was ruthless and evil in her destruction. I will never vote for Hillary. She has proven that she will stomp on anyone and eat her own kind for the sake of power. I am certain that had Monica not saved her dress, at the urging of Linda Tripp, that she would have met with an untimely accident. As it was, it was rumored that Hillary and all the power behind her were on the hunt for the dress when the existence of it was brought to light. The fact that Monica is alive and she managed to keep the dress from being destroyed before the DNA (Bill’s jizz) was tested is a miracle.

  48. Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

    “Chelsea came on board as vice chairman in 2011″

    The correct term is vice chair. Chairman is an outdated gender specific term that progressive thinkers dispensed with in the last century.

  49. Gigi says:

    I don’t excuse bad behavior but when I think of Chelsea I think of that awkward thirteen year old constantly being compared to the Gore girls. I’d imagine her experiences (including being spoofed on SNL) as a child have contributed to who she is today. She probably has a very hard veneer and doesn’t always act in a kind manner as a defense mechanism.