Chelsea Clinton’s Cheerleading Cult
How thirsty does Variety look begging readers to join it in doing high V cheerleading moves for Chelsea Clinton?
Thirstier than an ultra-marathoner lost in Death Valley in mid-July.
Hyping the entertainment magazine’s latest cover, Co-Editor-in-Chief Claudia Eller gushed this week, “How cool does Chelsea Clinton look on our Power of Women, NY, cover?”
Welcome to the liberal media’s manufacturing of “cool.” Leather jacket? Check. Overzealous airbrushing? Check. Humanizing grin? Check. Democratic establishment pedigree? Checkity-check-check.
This is just the latest attempt by The Media Resistance to make Chelsea Clinton a thing. The same liberal lunatics in the press who rage about the Trump children’s nepotistic privileges champion the “refreshingly outspoken” daughter of the Clinton dynasty — who, at 37 years old, will receive a “Lifetime Impact” award from Variety on Friday for her “humanitarian work.”
The honor comes during the same week that the Clinton Global Initiative cash machine officially shut down. Among the generous “humanitarian” projects of CGI’s parent, the Clinton Foundation: chipping in a reported $3 million for Chelsea’s wedding to another heir of Democratic corruptocrats, Marc Mezvinsky — the newly jobless former hedge fund manager and son of convicted fraudster Edward Mezvinsky, a former Democratic congressman from Iowa.
Remember: The Clintons’ own inner circle lambasted Chelsea’s hubby for exploiting the Clinton Foundation and CGI to prop up his now-defunct hedge fund. The duo also siphoned off charitable donations to pay for “taxes on money from her parents” and expenses racked up to subsidize her “life for a decade,” according to longtime Clinton aide Doug Band.
But I digress from the Cult of Chelsea Coolness. Shake those pompoms, propaganda media:
The New York Times lauded “Chelsea Clinton, Unbound,” applauded her “confrontational tweeting” against President Trump and interviewed her about books for a series featuring successful authors — after her most recent ghostwritten opus on global health care flopped like those famous Filipino divers on YouTube.
BuzzFeed and The Hill cover Chelsea as if she were a Kardashian. Politico also cooed over Chelsea’s new “spicy, sarcastic online personality” on Twitter. Then the Beltway publication hailed her upcoming children’s book, which opportunistically cribs left-wing feminist Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s cri de coeur, “She Persisted.”
The Huffington Post breathlessly reported on Chelsea’s brave thoughts about breast-feeding and menstruation. She boldly asserted in a wellness article that we all need to “support” breast-feeding women and menstruating girls “by talking candidly” about them. OK then. Prepare the Nobel Prize nomination, stat!
Insipid platitudes deserve eye rolls, not gala celebrations. What independent “power of women” has Chelsea Clinton exercised, other than inheriting her father’s name and what’s left of her two-time-losing mother’s political cache?
“Lifetime achievement”? She skated through college and pulled family strings to secure her short-lived, high-priced jobs in management consulting and media.
Those who know Chelsea Clinton best see her for what she is: a “spoiled brat,” to quote Doug Band.
She is Bill Clinton without the charm, Hillary Clinton without the ruthlessness and full Billary in her bottomless well of inflated entitlement and ideological hackery.
The ineluctable drive to prop up Chelsea Clinton is textbook fake news. The only constituency rooting for her to run for political office is the Hollywood-media complex, which is desperately trying to squeeze blood from a rotten turnip.
How uncool is that?
