Chelsea, toxic asset? Byron York rightly mocks the Clintons for launching a campaign with an anti-inequality theme while Chelsea poses on the cover of Elle wearing a Gucci dress, Cartier bracelet, , etc. But the Chelsea “optics” are a little more complicated than the term “plutography” (gawking at the rich) suggests. As readers of Dana Thomas’ books know all too well, the market for Cartier bracelets isn’t the rich but the upper middle class. They wear them — well, I don’t know why, but it has a lot to do with status and at least a bit with snobbery. Which raises the issue of social equality. Which makes Chelsea’s cover shoot more toxic, not less. …
Update: “They’re working on her relatability,” a “former employee” tells Politico.
Chelsea: Toxic asset? http://t.co/VjwLUMcW1g
Not sure “anti-inequality theme” is quite right. Actually, consistent with Mickey’s advice (admittedly to GOP but still smart!), the HRC announcement video focuses not on inequality btw top & middle but on opportunity for the middle with no mention of the top. Struck me as a good approach. Also, is jewelry, even expensive(ish) jewelry, really inconsistent with social equality? Nearly all women wear jewelry.
Yeah, well, the big news around here is that a certain auto dealer is offering a free Stihl chain saw–the biggest model–with the purchase of a car. Everybody could use a spare. Chain saw, I mean. Not a car.
[…] Related: Mickey Kaus on Chelsea’s toxic pretentiousness. […]
Eff those effin’ Clinton pukes, and all the thieving and conniving they represent.
Chelsea, toxic asset? http://t.co/i23dkkYdlB // The middle class is sure to benefit from Chelsea’s designer accoutrements(French accent)
Chelsea Clinton, Toxic Asset -> http://t.co/OjQb97mTXv
People are trying to defend the campaign are fighting a losing battle. You can parse little points here and there about women wearing jewelry, but the bottom line is that the Clinton’s personify the cronyism of modern leftist politics. At least Silicon Valley oligarchs have actually produced something. People like the Clintons (and Terry MacAuliffe and John Podesta and his brother, etc.) have produced nothing. They are worth over $100,000,000 from selling access to themselves and their powerful friends, and the promise of future access if and when Hillary is elected president. This point cannot be hidden by the main stream media. It is there for everyone to see. The Clintons and their wealth are despicable. They are the ulimate example of how our society has devolved into one where oligarchs control, and the political insiders (as opposed to business insiders) are profiting more than ever.
The Clintons are elitist. They are rich because they are part of the elite. Full Stop.
@kausmickey: Chelsea, toxic asset? http://t.co/mYvZ8YGE1F
Maybe that’s why they call her “Stinky Pu$$y” Rodham’s little girl
Chelsea’s toxic pretentiousness http://t.co/3IVT03wYI5
[…] This is a typical take: […]