Chelsea Clinton to step up role in her mother's campaign
Source: cnn
Chelsea Clinton to step up role in her mother's campaign
By Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 5:16 PM ET, Tue December 15, 2015 | Video Source: CNN
(CNN)Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's presidential campaign will increase in the coming months, according to a source close to the former first daughter.
Clinton will start campaigning for her mother in January, making trips to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states, the source said.
Chelsea Clinton's trip to Iowa and New Hampshire was first reported by Time magazine.
To date, Chelsea Clinton has been largely a behind-the-scenes player in Hillary Clinton's campaign, offering advice and personal support, but rarely appearing in public with her mother. Chelsea Clinton gave a speech at a September event hosted by Foundry Methodist Church in Washington and attended the campaign's launch in June, but that is the extent of her public appearances so far.
That will change this month and in the coming year.
................................
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/chelsea-clinton-hillary-clinton-campaign/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist&iref=obinsite
Looking forward to see her on the campaign trail
?quality=75&strip=color&w=1100
Chelsea Clinton, inspires 18,000 students and educators at WE Day Minnesota at the Xcel Energy Center on November 3, 2015
bowens43
(16,064 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)The difference is there's only been one Clinton as President two Bushes as President and a third one running and there ALL white males
earthside
(6,960 posts)Sadly, I don't think Chelsea is much of a plus for the Clinton cause anymore.
It makes the Clinton campaign look like just an extension of the Clinton Foundation.
I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldnt.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)And she is worth millions and millions and millions of dollars.
You know, a real regular person.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)Have you ever heard her speak? Have you ever heard any of the Bush daughters speak? I gather the answer is no because if you had you would readily know the answer to your question. And since you display your ignorance on the subject you should just STFU!
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Bernin
(311 posts)Yeah, 'cause everyone loves her just like they love her mother.
This has loser written all over it.
Please proceed Madam Secretary...
BumRushDaShow
(130,385 posts)Because she has a soon-to-be 15-month old!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)She also travels a lot - I recall a posh weekend in London for some society wedding.
One percenters typically have at least 2 nannies - a regular one and a weekend/relief one. For a fascinating glimpse and absolutely addictive peek into the utterly weird world of child rearing in the upper reaches of Manhattan's social strata, check out The Nanny Diaries from your local library. I read the book, but haven't seen the film - but reviewers said the film didn't do justice to the book.
A friend whose daughter worked as a nanny for awhile in NYC recommended it to me, and said her daughter felt the book accurately reflected the realities of wealthy Manhattan mothers - some purely socialites and others working at high level careers.
BumRushDaShow
(130,385 posts)for thousands upon thousands of years. Hundreds of grand monuments exist today as tourist attractions throughout the world on every inhabited continent, celebrating their existence through the millenia. The United States was founded and nurtured by such people, who dragged my ancestors here to serve them without pay and under threat of death and dismemberment. They forced many of these slaves to erect the White House - a mansion with 132-rooms as a tribute to the 1% rulers of this nation.
It boggles the mind that DUers have suddenly discovered the facts of human nature and assume such is some sort of "aberration" here in the U.S., while naively planning to defeat these "1%", a category of people that also encompasses all of our national politicians including Bernie, who is a member of such.
And as a sidenote as a female, be aware that there are millions of "non-1%" women who have "nannies" (a fancy term for a caretaker) - they are the "lady down the street", the grandmothers and great-grand mothers, or the sisters, aunts, or cousins. Some get paid, some don't. I expect Jimmy Carter (another 1%er) will not be attacked for having had a nanny for Amy (and that nanny's story is pretty sad).
IMHO, it's time for reality checks and cessation of the idiotic and nonsensical talking points.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Look on my works, ye mighty and despair!
So all child care is the same? Please read the book - and you'll see a chasm of difference between child care available to working mothers with low paying jobs, and the child care employed by people living in $10 million "apartments" like Chelsea. The child care drop off center in the church basement pampers, nurtures and enriches each of its kids as much as a private, live-in Nanny? That's not the reality in upper class Manhattan.
Bernie in the one percent? You're comparing apples and oranges. The critical indicator is assets, not income. To be in the top one percent in regard to assets, not annual income, you need $8 million. Your link refers to his assets, not his income: Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) ranks 84th in the Senate with an estimated net worth* of $417,515 in 2013.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/
BumRushDaShow
(130,385 posts)and there are no "apples and oranges" comparisons. The so-called "1%" cannot exclude someone's favored candidates by the bogus argument of "net worth" vs "income". The poor have no "net worth", let alone income, and the Bernies of the world are privileged compared to most of us. He is not a poor boy.
The game-playing is tiresome.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)net worth versus income. And you keep on believing that someone who, over a lifetime, has accumulated less than 1/2 a million is as motivated to accumulate wealth as the Clintons who salted away more than $70 million since leaving the White House.
BumRushDaShow
(130,385 posts)It continues to boggle the mind that folks can automatically eliminate favored folks who fit the criteria - and I say this as someone who is an undecided voter but who WILL vote the Democratic nominee.
It doesn't matter how much they have - whether accumulated or earned, because as long as it is more than what the average Joe or Jane can even have access to, then they are not the "typical". No current sitting elected national official as a candidate can claim some sort of "pass". There are privileges granted to those in Congress (and moreso those in the Senate) than one can even imagine.
Karma13612
(4,555 posts)Shows that candidate Clinton's numbers among the young voter demographic aren't where they need to be.
A lot of the young are going w/Bernie so this could be warranted. And it minimizes HRC's exposure considering her favorability ratings aren't brilliant.
#Bernie16 for me!!!
DhhD
(4,695 posts)young people struggling with college debt and the American Dream; therefore young people may resent and/or reject the 1% Clinton Clan even more than before.
Sending out your daughter, who has a baby, would be a no-no for this Baby Boomer.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)It performed below the market the first two years. The day Hillary withdraws from the race, there will be a massive withdrawal of funds from that hedge!
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Proserpina
(2,352 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)It's time to pay the piper. Hillary "asked" for her help because she believes it will matter, and Chelsea's future is still largely hitched to the Clinton wagon. It makes complete sense.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I feel sorry for her.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Chelsea Clinton is seen as an asset to the campaign, especially with younger voters and students. The former first daughter played a sizable role in her mother's failed 2008 campaign, regularly stumping for her mother in important primary and caucus states, usually at colleges and universities.
Emphasis added.
riversedge
(70,589 posts)The last time she worked on her mother's campaign, her mother lost. I don't see your reasoning here.
riversedge
(70,589 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)works the opposite of the way it did in 2007-8?
That's your reasoning?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)trying to cheer up your cohorts with a belief in lightening striking twice.
bvf
(6,604 posts)The Empire State Building is struck by lightning an average of 23 times a year!
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Think she will bring him along on the campaign trail?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And that has proven disappointing - of 3 appearances in the same day in Pennsylvania - one was very low turnout, the next one was cancelled with no explanation, and I haven't heard any great stuff about the 3rd one. Here's more detail: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128082298
These were the $500 minimum to be in the same overly large room with Bill, and for $2700 you got a quickie, cattle call photo with him. The lack of response indicates that financial support for Hillary is drying up in the critical state of Pennsylvania.
Wonder what the charge will be to attend Chelsea's gatherings.
Added on edit: the only 3 events detailed in the OP link are all fund-raisers. Yet Chelsea is supposedly going to attract the youth vote. Get a clue, campaign managers - young voters do not have $500-$2700 to shell out.
Yup, folk$ get out your checkbook$ for a family holiday celebration, that'$ Clinton $tyle!Clinton will headline two campaign fundraisers in January, according to the source. These events will not include her mother, marking the first time Chelsea Clinton will venture onto the 2016 campaign trial without her.
Chelsea Clinton will headline a "Family Holiday Celebration With Hillary and Chelsea" on December 17 in New York, the first fundraiser to include the former first daughter as a headlining speaker.
On further edit:
Price$ $lashed! In response to all these young voters whining about crushing student loan debt, there are now cut-rate admi$$ion price$ of ONLY $250.
At the fundraisers Chelsea is hosting in Boston, attendees will be asked to contribute $250, $500 or $1,000. Though events hosted by Hillary Clinton personally vary in entry cost, attendees are usually asked to raise larger amounts, and regularly require a contribution of $2,700 to attend.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Mr. Clinton flew into Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport after an appearance in Pittsburgh and headed to the evening fundraiser at the Radisson at Lackawanna Station hotel in downtown Scranton for Mrs. Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate. The event drew about 200 people.
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/bill-clinton-speaks-on-wife-s-public-policy-passion-1.1981901
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)
So where did the "200" estimate come from? As per all these "private" fundraisers, the crowd estimates are subjective and from biased sources. Not a single photo of the event itself.
The event was closed to local media, though a The Times-Tribune reporter later saw limited video of some of Mr. Clintons remarks.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)One article said that reporters looked inside the ballroom before the event, and estimated that the room was set up for 100 people.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)When I help with arranging events, we typically set up for at least 20% more than are expected.
Tote Life
(72 posts)I'm guessing she is almost out of money or she wouldn't be sending both of her immediate family to fundraise.
Her burn rate was at 90% before October 1st. I wonder what it is now.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-money-burn-rate/
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Bill is like an old racehorse who will run himself to death if asked to do so.
Winning isn't the most important thing to Hillary. It's the only thing!
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Beacool
(30,254 posts)LS_Editor
(893 posts)I recall she had it in the bag in 2008. That went well for her and her supporters.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)Heck, he wasn't even a Democrat until a couple of months ago.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)And this perfect storm will focus on the economy, especially income inequality. Both significant Hillary weaknesses.
Sanders has caucused with the Democrats for years. It is pretty ridiculous to assert his policy positions are not compatible with the Democratic Party.
Again, we'll see.
stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Probably she'll run against John Ellis Bush, Jr. He's cutting his political teeth, as well.
I do hold a soft spot in my heart for Chelsea...when Rush Bimbo called her ugly. That was so cruel and beyond the pale for an adolescent to have to deal with.
And no, Bernie is not of the one percenters (oligarchs). He was criticized soundly in the beginning for not being able to manage his money.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Must be a huge strategy meeting going on somewhere!
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)We have a lot of 1% money to burn.
mpcamb
(2,886 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)without shitting all over it.
mpcamb
(2,886 posts)Kinda looks like you're pimping for a candidate and not seeking wisdom and truth or any other vision.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Now again, what is the question? Yes, it is appropriate for Chelsea to join in the campaign. If she is paid by the campaign it is also appropriate. Chelsea has a good appeal, yes she will be a positive for Hillary's campaign. The Clintons are great.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)This place can be ridiculous.
BlueMTexpat
(15,379 posts)Chelsea in this thread, it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between some DU posters and GOPers.
Chelsea has always been a bonus for her mother's campaigns and I am glad that she will be participating more in this one, whatever happens in the campaign.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)It's truly disgusting how they are treated. I guess adult children of politicians are allowed to campaign for their parents, as long as their last name is not Clinton.
If I wanted to read nasty crap about the Clintons I would go to Free Republic. Then again, why bother? The same level of vitriol is right here on a supposed Democratic site.
LeFleur1
(1,197 posts)Our granddaughter once said the severe left is every bit as bad in their fervor as the right wing zealots. And it seems so, at least on DU.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)I have always said that DU is the mirror image of Free Republic. The same kind of extremist opinions, just at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The irony is that both extremes believe that the majority of voters of their respective parties think like they do, which is not true.
mpcamb
(2,886 posts)I want to point out there's a difference between the two candidates. When people gathered a few years back against the one percent, other people got it. A group slept out in the rain in opposition to Wall Street's lock on public policy. They were true believers rather than crazies. A window was opened to a clear honest discourse about what had driven the American populace downward during their lives, for the exaltation of the few.
Which candidate is on 99% side?
I just can't let that slop about "extremism" stand unchallenged.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)I understand differing views on policy, but the non-stop vile thrown against a Democratic politician on a Democratic site goes far beyond disagreements over policy, some are straight out RW talking points and that to me is disgusting. I have read posts about her marriage, her husband dalliances and other all time RW hits of the 90s.
Chelsea hasn't hurt anyone. She's one of many adult children who have campaigned for their parents. Read the comments. Why the vitriol? I can expect to read that kind of crap on a RW site, but I expect a little more class and decorum from a Democratic board. Silly me....
mpcamb
(2,886 posts)I searched the thread and and am at a loss for personal attacks.
A lotta people were don't trust the rich and their candidates.
Plenty of good reason for that with any read on recent history and economics, but show me "posts about her marriage, her husband dalliances"and "that kind of crap" above.
Like I said, I wasn't going to dive into this but I'd hate to yield to "a little more class and decorum" in a total absence of facts.
And so to bed...
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)"between some DU posters and GOPers. " It's been obvious for some time now.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I have no issue with Chelsea being active in her mom's camapign, family members often get involved in a campaign.
I am just so done with the Clintons. Please go away. Lol
Beacool
(30,254 posts)It's a disgrace the kind of comments that some type here just because they prefer another candidate.
This site has jumped the shark and become a cesspool and a place where malcontents and bitter people pollute it with their vile.
I wish some of you would use all that energy against Republicans, not the daughter of a Democratic politician.
Disgusting....
ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)I don't know what's worse; a supporter of the Republic Party or a supporter of Bernie Sanders. Either way I am shockingly disgusted!
Beacool
(30,254 posts)He would not approve of many of the posts on this board.
I couldn't agree more. I think Sanders is a fine politician doing the work of representing his constituents. OTOH, his supporters leave a lot to be desired!
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)riversedge
(70,589 posts)Beacool
(30,254 posts)Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Getting a hands-on education in running an effective Presidential campaign will come in handy a few years down the road when it becomes her turn!
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.