You may recall one of my persistent gripes is the media’s insistence that we treat Chelsea Clinton as if she’s some sort of extraordinary achiever, when in fact she’s “a young woman whose adult life consists mostly of stepping through doors opened by her parents’ power and meandering through the highest levels of high society without actually doing much.” Our one glimpse of her in a public role was her widely-panned, $600,000-per-year, part-time work as an increasingly infrequent NBC News correspondent; she’s also been the keynote speaker at SXSW and was named assistant vice provost at New York University at age 30, before finishing her dissertation.
This week Chelsea Clinton honored as one of Glamour magazine’s “Women of the Year,” and Katie Couric decreed, “I think it’s safe to say, probably a ‘Mom of the Year.’” As Carmine Sabia notes, she’s been a mom for six weeks.
Somewhat ironically, back in 2010, I was one of the few on the Right urging others to stop complaining about her lavish wedding, contending, ”Bill Clinton’s out of office and nobody elected Chelsea to anything. Chelsea’s never claimed to be a woman of the people, or salt of the earth, or humble or anything. For most of her adult life, she’s lived her life and avoided the public spotlight.” Now Chelsea Clinton is in the public spotlight and we’re being instructed to think of her as extraordinary, without any good answers about what she’s done, or what she would have done, without her father’s name or her mother’s influence.