Democrats are confused as to how they were bested by a political figure they see as an empty suit with a pedigree famous for little more than tweeting. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
It’s been hard to avoid the contrived, media-driven campaign to fabricate Chelsea Clinton into a figure of political and cultural relevance.
Take for example the New York Times book review, which dug into Clinton’s literary preferences. Bet you didn’t know that the scion of the Clinton family first read Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 in the seventh grade and “it still makes me uncomfortable, even more so, decades later.” Well, now you do. When prompted by her interlocutor with the Times to offer a book recommendation for President Donald Trump, Clinton criticized him as a man who doesn’t read enough. “Whom would you want to write your bio?” Chelsea was asked. “If it ever gets written? Me,” she confided. “But there’s so much more to do before that even gets asked.” Whatever might she imagine for herself?
The Times interview, published on February 23, appears to have set off a flurry of Chelsea Clinton profiles you never knew you wanted. The youngest Clinton “has been fired up online since Trump took office,” according to the media criticism outlet Newser, “resulting in a more ‘provocative’ and ‘punchier’ former first daughter who isn’t afraid to take on anti-Semitism, ‘fake news,‘ and even the commander in chief himself.”
You might be surprised to learn that Clinton “takes down Trump” on Twitter on a regular basis, as Mashable helpfully informed its readership. In fact, Clinton is occupying a role that cannot be performed by either Hillary Clinton or even Michelle Obama: “a woman who doesn’t hold office but possesses both political power and the ability to speak forcefully about threats to American democracy.” The “political power” Clinton enjoys seems to have been conferred upon her exclusively by the reporters glowingly praising her snarky tweets.
Those tweets, by the way, are written entirely in her own voice. At least, that is the revelation provided to CNN by Clinton’s spokesperson. And it’s a “distinctive, sometimes sassy, voice America hasn’t heard before.”
Politico agreed. Chelsea Clinton’s tweets reveal “a spicy, sarcastic online personality” that contrasts mightily with “the uber-careful, wonky-like-her-mother” personality she cultivated on the 2016 campaign trail. Politico noted that Clinton has not “ruled out” a political career for herself, which is hardly a shock. Surely this barely concealed hagiographical coverage of what are a string of anodyne tweets softens up the beachhead.
If she runs, it won’t be Clinton’s connected handlers and the stories they place in influential news outlets that provide the next generation of Clintons with a national platform. It will be Clinton’s vaunted wit; the “spicy,” “sassy,” Casandra-like truth-teller the left needs so desperately in the age of Trump.
For example, reacting to Donald Trump’s speech to an audience of African-Americans, Clinton remarked: “This is… this is…” Or when Clinton responded to the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, who reacted to the White House’s plan to reduce the regulations crippling Wall Street by noting “who could have predicted this?: “Anyone taking him seriously,” Clinton quipped. And who can forget the time when Clinton showed up in a New York City park and snapped a washed-out photo of anti-Trump protesters: “We will keep standing up for a country that matches our values and ideals for all.” These are the kinds of incisive jabbs CNN thought to highlight to showcase the snappy drollery to which a grateful nation is now privy.
Surely the least we can do in return to honor Clinton’s sacrifice is entice a Democratic House member representing a deep-blue liberal district in New York City to retire before 2018 to make way for a new generation of Clintons. Maybe then these forced tributes will end.