I'm a member of the media, BTW, although not liberal ... but say the media does promote Chelsea Clinton (although I'd be stunned if it happens). Does that automatically mean, without a doubt, that the people will buy it? Does that automatically mean goodwill will be created? I mean, the media could push Charles Manson for president, but how much good will that do? I think people on the right assign way too much power to the media, and it sickens me that everyone is sitting around cringing in fear about the potential of Chelsea Clinton getting into politics or Hillary running for president. Plus I guess a lot of my conservative brethren have lost faith in the American people after they elected Slick twice. The liberal media had nothing to do with Slick getting elected. Slick would've gotten elected ... I think even if Perot hadn't run ... if he'd ritually sacrificed a virgin in the Capitol Rotunda and ran screaming and dripping with blood proclaiming himself to be the reincarnation of John Quincy Adams, because the American people liked him better than the two dud candidates we ran. It was Slick's time and place, and the American people knew he was an adulterer and a snake-oil salesman, but made a deal with the devil and put him in office for eight years.
But again, he was one of a kind. It was the man, not the name "Clinton," that made the difference. And I don't think his wife's in the same ball park, and I seriously doubt Chelsea will be either.