Posted on 12/26/2012 7:11:04 PM PST by Kaslin
I know there are questions on my beat larger and more pressing than who’s worse as a TV journalist, Chelsea Clinton or Jenna Bush Hager, the presidentially-connected, pretend correspondents at NBC News.
But I continue to be fascinated by a network news division putting someone as outrageously unqualified as Clinton on a prime-time newsmagazine. I watched her again last week in a softer-than-soft piece on a weight loss program started by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church, and I can say with absolute certainty that she has not improved one lick in the last year. In fact, I think she is worse than when she started this job for which NBC News President Steve Capus said “it’s as if she had been preparing her whole life.”
That’s why I read with such fascination a piece at Politico this week suggesting Clinton was ready for the “next act” in her life.
Here’s the nut graph: “Family friends and supporters says Chelsea Clinton, who has evolved from a frizzy-haired little girl in the White House to a self-assured public figure in her own right, is ready to play an increasingly larger role in the national debate and may emerge as a pre-2016 surrogate of sorts as her mom mulls her future plans.”
The piece is filled with quotes from those family friends and supporters describing Clinton as “incredibly articulate and human…charmingly personal while at the same time substantively deep.”
If true, it’s amazing how none of that manages to work its way into her on-air work for NBC with such programs as Rock Center.
In the Warren piece, for example, the pastor said he had a goal of losing 90 pounds and had already dropped 50.
“So, you’re over the 50 yard line,” she said.
No, that would only be like crossing the 50 yard line if a football field was 90 yards instead of 100 yards long. The fact that NBC left her response in suggests how bad the rest of her on-camera verbal interaction with Warren must have been. Or, maybe the producers have simply given up on making her look like she is in any way worthy of a network correspondent’s job.
But I see hope in the Politico piece.
My first reaction to it was: “What, after her year of such great triumphs as an NBC News special correspondent, she’s accomplished all anyone can hope to accomplish on TV, and it’s time to move on in search of bigger stages and greater challenges? Did I miss something here, or is this some higher level of Washington spin that’s beyond a simple, country media critic like me?”
But my second reaction now is: “Those family friends and supporters don’t talk to the press unless they are serving some higher Clinton purpose. Could this piece be part of an effort to grease the skids for an announcement saying Clinton is leaving NBC News? It is, after all, coming up on a year since the network extended her initial deal. And you can’t walk away letting people think you flopped – even if that is what you did.”
She is going to be running for office and is the perfect DemocRAT candidate.....she can declare residency in some state that a Kennedy is retiring from, declare her candidacy, run and win......
/johnny
Back when the Clintons were in the WH I remember people excoriating anyone who would say anything negative about Chelsea. My attitude was they aren’t ridiculing a 13 year old. They were ridiculing a future political nightmare.
Lot of that going around...
Joe-Joe-Joe sticks in my mind. A twin, the one not burned by his father shooting off illegal fireworks, iirc.
She teaches graduate classes @ Columbia.
Wouldn’t you love to be in there with a big picture of Monica and or Webb on your desk?
Maybe one of the “reporters” can ask Miss Clinton where her mother is?
This is Pravda and Izvestia USA Style; idolizing the up-and-coming Party hacks who have been selected for promotion to higher levels as reward for being a good, loyal political lackey.
Chelsea obviously doesn’t know her gluteous maximus from Page 8, but she’s of royal commie-lib bloodstock, dontchaknow!
As El Rushbo has said many times, incompetence and failure are actually rewarded in liberal circles; because GOOD INTENTIONS” and parroting the Party Line are the only thing that matters.
Facts don’t matter with the left. They see all sorts of things in Obama that simply aren’t there. They will do the same for Chelsea Clinton. I thing that attacking her simply strengthens her hand. I would ignore her until or unless she tries to step into the national spotlight. As with most presidential children, I don’t think that will ever happen.
Remember after she graduated from Sanford she started out at the top in her first job?
Easy way for NBC to curry favor with the klintons (and Web Hubbell ).
in what... influence peddling???
she’ll be booted upstairs until they find a position for her that is all title and absolutely no substance.
Just like Michelle Obama’s $300K ‘outreach’ program at the hospital- a job that remains unfilled since she left.
she’ll be booted upstairs until they find a position for her that is all title and absolutely no substance.
Just like Michelle Obama’s $300K ‘outreach’ program at the hospital- a job that remains unfilled since she left.
The Inner Circle take care of the Party Members. Ain’t communism wonderful?
Happy New Year
Ok, well I didn’t bother reading the article because I couldn’t care less about ANY of the Clintons, but it’s not like NBC has any “real” journalists anyway. Their business model is all about paid propagandists.
This is another sad example of how the patriachial society oppresses women. She didi not want to be an infotainment bimbo married to a ski bum; she wanted to go to medical school.
michelle actually did real work for the hospital. she was in charge of shuttling poor blacks with no insurance to other hospitals, to keep beds open for canadians paying cash, and customers with health care to pay their bills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.