The top-rated comment at a WaPo article titled "A college balks at Hillary Clinton’s fee, so books Chelsea for $65,000 instead."
University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity speaker to headline its gala luncheon marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame....Hillary's fee was $275,000, but those other women's fees were lower than Chelsea's. Why would a college — a college that's price-sensitive — pay more for Chelsea, especially for a women’s hall of fame? It kind of highlights what bullshit a women's hall of fame is. Anyway, the college was happy because Chelsea created "buzz" and people came to the "gala." I'd like to know what Gloria Steinem thinks of this. Steinem is a self-created woman —whatever you think of that creation — and she was less than half the price of Chelsea.
Chelsea Clinton, who at the time was just shy of her 34th birthday, commanded a higher fee than other prominent women speakers the university considered booking when Hillary Clinton proved too expensive, including feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000), the records show.
Posts
93 comments:
My son is at Asheville and I've told him that if they pick a predictably horrible speaker like that I will be skipping his graduation.
He said he'd join me at the bar.
Gotta raise 'em right.
_XC
Chelsea Clinton drives more interest because she's new and less understood which creates interest to understand. Note how this interest, or "buzz", is easily mistaken for accomplishment and public excitement for ideas. Then compare Chelsea Clinton's current status to Barack Obama circa 2007.
There is so much wrong in that situation. First, for all the whining from the Left about how much college costs and so lenders (or the taxpayers) should have to cough it up so students aren't saddled with debt, not a peep from these morons about some of the questionable things the schools spend money on? Chelsea's fee alone could likely pay for at least one student to attend that college for free.
Second, Chelsea has accomplished exactly nothing in her life and is merely a part of her family's charity bilking scheme. I don't blame Chelsea for charging so much to speak--hey, whatever the market will bear!--but for an educational institution to be willing to pay anything at all for her dubious value? Simply because she's "famous"? So is Charles Manson--they could have gotten him on video link to draw a crowd. The degeneracy of the educational establishment is on high display here.
Third, if they're looking for women of accomplishment, and this is what they could find, then they weren't looking very hard. This is an insult to women who have actually done something with their lives. It certainly does not help the fact that such women don't get enough publicity by bypassing them in favor of this worthless idle adult.
You can hire a pretty descent band for $65K and have a much better time.
Missouri leftists.
Well, you can't make a campaign donation (Cough... Bribe... Cough) to Gloria Steinem.
They want a money grubbing talentless Clinton, but they can't afford the big money grubbing talentless Clinton...what my dad used to call having champagne tastes and a beer budget.
I'd love to get a recording of the negotiations and decision making that went into finding a speaker.
I think it would sell as entertainment.
I wonder what Chelsea gets to open up a car dealership.
Steinem has always happily allowed herself and her principles be walked over by the Clintons.
Remember when Chelsea was a kid and we weren't supposed to make fun of her?
The only feminist who has any integrity at all when it comes to the Clintons is Tammy Bruce.
Steinem is a self-created woman —whatever you think of that creation — and she was less than half the price of Chelsea.
Oh yeah, there's some buzz for you. Gloria Steinem! You remember the disco era? Before that. You don't remember the disco era? What the hell are we teaching you, anyway? Haven't any of you taken ancient, ancient history? Damn kids today. Gloria Steinem! She was a playboy bunny. Except she was undercover, like James Bond, if James Bond was a woman. Or like a fembot, if a fembot was a human being and a good person. Gloria Steinem, undercover playboy bunny superstar!
I was going to make a joke the other day in my real life:
"Jesus was a rape baby. There is no way that Mary could have given consent given the power difference between her and God."
But that would be a "rape joke" and the whole power disparity thing got thrown out defending the Clintons. So nobody would laugh.
Katie Couric was the speaker at the UW Graduation earlier this year. Not sure how much she was paid. But she was entertaining. And far better than other speakers that day, as you'd expect from a paid communicator.
As feminism disappears down its own orifice.
It sounds to me more like the school and the Clintons were negotiating a bribe, and the school settled for a lower value package, for benefits to be named later.
Chelsea Clinton may have many fine qualities, but it is difficult to imagine circumstances where a person would ever say "Holy cow! ______ just happened! Thank God Chelsea Clinton is here!"
Seriously! There was a movie about it. Here's Kirstie Alley as Gloria Steinem. She went deep, deep undercover in the lair of the beast to expose the evils of the patriarchy. Kirstie Alley. From Cheers! Kirstie Alley! What do you mean, what's Cheers? Cheers! The TV show with Ted Danson!
What if we get Gloria Steinem and Kirstie Alley. She can't be charging much. I'll bet we get both of them, and a couple of Playboy bunnies from the 21st century. We could do a Feminist Crossfire! Cheaper than Chelsea, and twice the buzz.
I'm reminded of the story of how, at the 1976 Democratic national convention, Lesley Stahl of CBS News asked little Amy Carter if she had "a message for the children of America."
Amy replied: "No."
They passed on Gloria Steinem to take Chelsea Clinton? WTF!
Expat(ish) said...
My son is at Asheville and I've told him that if they pick a predictably horrible speaker like that I will be skipping his graduation.
He said he'd join me at the bar.
Gotta raise 'em right.
_XC
My daughter graduated from Fordham about ten years ago. The speaker was Chris Matthews. I thought, well, at least he'll be interesting. Holy s*** ! The most boring talk ever. Sounded like he wrote it in the taxi on the way over. The worst part of a SIX HOUR graduation. B O R I N G !
==============================================================
What is the Althouse fee for a speech? Who would be more interesting, Chelsea or Althouse? To ask the question is to answer it.
I mean, for one thing Mrs. Bale could tell us how come fish need bicycles. ;-)
Speakers fees for the Clintons are not at all about getting to hear them speak.
It's how you pay off the organized crime family without encountering legal issues.
For larger sums, you make donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Remember how Steinem spoke truth to power about the treatment of women in the Clinton White House and the attacks on their reputation, public airing of past sexual history, trailer park jokes, etc that the Clintons used against those women?
Me neither. That's because she is a Democrat partisan first Feminist second.
Spot on value comparison. I think if they couldn't afford Hillary, they should have gone for George Clinton. At least you might get some real entertainment for your money.
Chelsea is accomplished, like Paris Hilton.
I am with Gusty Winds on this: Let the class president or valedictorian give the speech (for free). Or let the students vote for their favorite professor to give the speech, for a reasonable honorarium and then have a (free for graduating seniors) dance party sometime in graduation week with a pretty good band.
Rick said...
Chelsea Clinton drives more interest because she's new and less understood which creates interest to understand.
I understand that she has to pay for the face-lifts which obscure the fact that Webster Hubbell (not Janet Reno) is her father.
I assume it's all a matter of how many tickets could be sold, not how much gravitas each speaker would bring. UMKC is more known for engineering than women's studies. Not sure what they're even doing with a women's hall of fame in the first place. If actual politics is involved at all it might be doing an end run around Claire McCaskill who has had a frosty relationship with the Clinton's ever since she came out early for the Won. Or it might be at the behest of the Showers Institute (keep those stem cells coming). I just don't know.
Still Occam's razor says that even with a full house, they couldn't afford Hillary, and that even at half price Steinem for example couldn't fill a table of 10. But ah, half of Johnson County might turn out to see Chelsea.
I only charge $20 plus ground travel, and I have a better voice than Chelsea.
You know what would be a good way to bribe somebody and take it off your taxes too?
You could make a whole bunch of trades buying both sides of the deal. Let's say cattle futures. You could give all the winners to a governor's wife whose account you were managing, and whose husband had a say over the industry you were in, say chicken farming and pollution regulations. Then you could keep the losers yourself and take them off your taxes as bad investments.
Your "client" could brag about making all kinds of money investing in commodities too, making her reputation as "smart."
How can the apple fall far from the money tree when the money tree is all the apple knows?
Way off-topic: Obama is on TV right now with Brazil's prez in a press conference, and he keeps talking about the Iran negotiations in Lusanne. He pronounces it as though the name is "Lousson", dropping the n and shortening the a. Smartest, most international POTUS ever.
If George Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth then Chelsea Clinton was born with a golden slipper on her foot.
Where's Anne Richards when you need her? (Besides being dead.)
My graduation had one of the biologists responsible for the Green Revolution.
He wasn't a woman, though, so I guess he comes up short there, helping to feed billions.
And by "see" in my earlier comment, I meant it literally. Such people are booked for "galas" (it wasn't a lecture or even a "talk") to be seen, that they also speak is an unfortunate side effect.
Stowers Institute, not showers. Autocorrect wins again.
If colleges can afford to waste this much money on garbage they need to lose their charitable and tax exempt status.
Any female Army captain would have been a far more impressive example. The Left is truly pathetic.
It is telling that in the middle of the online article is a soft-focus Chelsea Clinton photo montage. That's heavy-hitting journalism for you. Consider the editorial meeting: Reporter: "We have a mildly critical investigative article about Chelsea Clinton's speaking fees." Editor: "Whatever. That will give us an opportunity to post a slideshow of her childhood, wedding, and baby." Publisher: "Clicks!"
CWJ wrote: I assume it's all a matter of how many tickets could be sold, not how much gravitas each speaker would bring.
It's about the number of zeros on the donation checks. In the flattery contest that is University Fundraising, Ms. Clinton could well have been worth the money.
As Brando suggests above, I propose that all coverage of these sorts of guest speaker fees be restated in the number of students that could be given free tuition at that school for a year.
Assuming a 15-credit load at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (http://www.umkc.edu/finadmin/cashiers/undergraduate-tuition-fee-rates.asp) and focusing only on the "Education" column, Chelsea Clinton's speech cost almost 8 students' annual tuition. For an hour of her time.
Hillary Clinton's fee would have cost over 33 students' annual tuition at UM-KC.
"I have always depended upon the kindness of strangers."
Jesus Christ, do these people not realize how fucking sleazy they are?
They are bribing her parents by paying the dullest person on Earth to drone on about her (non-existent) life experiences.
And Dems want to vote for her mom. Desperately.
Chelsea's fee alone could likely pay for at least one student to attend that college for free.
2 or 3 in some schools. And her speech is for, I believe, 10 minutes (she likely has to stretch mightily to fill that much time).
Chelsea Clinton may have many fine qualities
...judging by her television experience, you can eliminate "Entertaining", "intelligent", or "interesting" from that list of theoretical qualities.
Hey didn't she once try to care about money but couldn't? I guess she got over that.
Bush's daughters are trying to do good in the world. Chelsea is just a whore.
Chelsea's speaking fees reflect her unique access to a prominent presidential candidate. Many large institutions would be willing to shell out $65,000 if it meant being given the benefit of the doubt by the next administration.
Maybe they could have gotten SGT Leigh Ann Hester. Petite, pretty, and deadly in close quarters combat.
It kind of highlights what bullshit a women's hall of fame is.
Thank you for saying that so I don't have to.
"...she was less than half the price...." hmmmm, does anyone else see the parallel with that other profession?
Am i the only one who thinks public figures should be willing to speak at colleges for free?
"Maybe they could have gotten SGT Leigh Ann Hester. Petite, pretty, and deadly in close quarters combat."
Much more interesting but pretty scary for the girls. Sorry, cisgender vaginas. Sorry, trigger warning !
Am i the only one who thinks public figures should be willing to speak at colleges for free?
A story has it that Rod Serling once agreed to be a last-minute commencement speaker - and did it for nothing, although I'd like to think the school covered his travel expenses.
For some people, heavily traumatized as a child, perhaps by an accidental or coerced viewing of a syndicated repeat of Bonanza or The Dukes of Hazzard, the announcement of a trigger warning may, itself, trigger a moment of uneasiness and mental confusion. Affected trigger Victims (ATVs) will appreciate the announcement of "possible pre-trigger-warning-triggers" to allow them time to cover their eyes and ears and thus keep them from shitting their pants.
Awww..Clinton Lite. Same great taste. Less fulfilling.
Mom and Dad should keep raising their rates so only Chelsea is "affordable".
But c'mon...as a "price sensitive" uni, were they unable to book Emma and her traveling mattress?
Though her validity might undermine the thematic connection to the mental and financial raping the contemporary Uni experience..
Keep in mind that it was a bunch of university administrators in charge of a "women's hall of fame" who were setting up the shindig. You're not dealing with a group of diverse thinkers, or an audience that welcomes diversity in any meaningful sense. Any chance they would have considered Condi Rice? Sarah Palin? Carly Fiorina? Even if they waived a speaking fee, not a chance. And, while we're on the subject of counterfactuals, anyone expect to see any of those three (or Mother Theresa or Ayaan Hirsi Ali) in the hall of fame? Didn't think so.
how to marry a hedge fund guy
She didn't marry a hedge fund guy.
He became a hedge fund guy because of help he received from Bill Clinton.
The hedge fund bet a lot that Greek bonds would be paid off. They could be bought at 12% of face value at one time and rose to 60%. It then dropped.
They got out of it some time ago, after Syriza won the election.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/chelsea-clintons-husband-suffers-massive-hedge-fund-loss-greek-investment [02/03/2015 23:28 -0400]
Despite having Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as an investor and being Bill and Hillary Clinton's son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky (and two former colleagues from Goldman Sachs who manage Eaglevale Partners hedge fund) told investors in a letter sent last week they had been "incorrect" on Greece, helping produce losses for the firm’s main fund during two of the past three years. By 'incorrect' Chelsea Clinton's husband means the Eaglevale fund focused on Greece lost a stunning 48% last year and, as The Wall Street Journal reports, is impacting the overall returns of the roughly $400 million fund which has spent 27 of its 34 months in operation below its "high-water mark."
That investmenbt probably was on the advice of Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton probably also gave the same sort of advice to John Corzine (bet on government bonds denominated in Euros - my political instinct and contacts tell me those bonds are going to be paid off at par)
Corzine wanted to start over and make money quickly. He bet that European bonds (better countries than Greece) would be paid off, but he over margined himself, and got margin calls.
He actually wasn't wrong about those bonds. As jOHN mAYNARD Keynes said, the market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
http://www.maynardkeynes.org/keynes-the-speculator.html
>
Chelsea's degree is in public health, which means, I believe, that she is qualified to determine how much doctors should be paid, but not qualified to put a band aid on a cut finger.
Ridiculous that schools would pay for speakers. More bullshit administrators.
What Chelsea Clinton had was celebrity value, but you have to wonder if they wer just trying to funnel monmey to the Clinton family.
It's possible that KC might be good for Ms. Clinton. She may like those famous Midwestern family values, especially when compared to the sleazeball values that may be a genetic predisposition in her case. She could divorce the hedgefund scammer she is now married to (give him the kid -- it's got double-dose of sleazeball value predisposition), and marry a local boy from KC -- perhaps a puncher of cows or a slaughterer of hogs. They could move out onto the prairie together, build a sod house, and raise up some younguns. Assuming Chelsea then has one child per year until her womb grows barren and she grows mustache, and assuming the natural attrition for prairie-raised children (10% lost to blizzard, 10% lost to coyotes and/or Indians, 10% lost to typhus), she might get four or five survivors, and could start a new dynasty based good ol' American values rather than jumped-up trailer-park values.
Chelsea is accomplished, like Paris Hilton.
That is an insult to Paris Hilton, who at last check, has 8,418 results for products at Amazon.com
(Use the Althouse portal)
I believe the college thought Chelsea cost 65¢. The decimal was misplaced.
We live in a world where the likes of kim kardashian and paris hilton are paid more than that to show up at nightclub openings. We all can't get enough of celebrities.
If Ms. Clinton would like to get a glimpse of the romantic life that could lie in waiting for for her, like the somehow always unexpected blossoming of prairie flowers after a spring rain in Kansas, she could click on the link below and purchase from Amazon the book Homestead Brides Collection: 9 Pioneering Couples Risk All for Love and Land.
http://www.amazon.com/Homestead-Brides-Collection-Pioneering-Couples/dp/1630586862/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1435689157&sr=8-2&keywords=how+to+build+a+sod+house
Matthew is right.
These ridiculous speaking fees are merely mechanisms for laundering political payoffs.
It may not even be the university doing the paying, ultimately.
I suspect it is acting as a front for some of their donors.
And the amusing Chelsea-Hilary switch was exactly that, a negotiated reduction in the payoff.
The more interesting thing are the fees collected by media types, which seem to be popular campus speakers. I suspect that this is a mechanism for paying THEM off, for their political loyalty.
How about a woman who's created a successful business? Sara Blakely, founder of Spanx comes to mind.
Or, if you need more star power, Jessica Simpson parlayed middling talent as an actress into a successful clothing and accessories business.
Abby Johnson, of Fidelity, is also very successful (although she's the daughter of the founder, but still, she's no slouch).
Evidently state universities have way too much money.
Seriously...paying WOMEN to SPEAK?
What you'd pay for is to get them to shut up!
Oh the sacrifices people make in public service.
"But c'mon...as a "price sensitive" uni, were they unable to book Emma and her traveling mattress?"
Originally, they did book her. But when she started prattling on about performance art and asking about camera mounts on the walls (one per wall) they decided to go another direction.
The corruption, in terms of the payoff, in the open, makes the audience parties to the transaction and complicit members of the conspiracy against the public. That is the nature of the graduation exercise, an induction into the first ranks of our modern mafia.
Chelsea could take some of that money and have her DNA checked to squash or vindicate the rumors.
"Chelsea could take some of that money and have her DNA checked to squash or vindicate the rumors."
She knows and isn;t interested in DNA.
They could have had Elizabeth Holmes but, of course, she is a drop out.
Maybe she can discuss what it's like to have inlaws in prison for financial fraud, and parents who have found a way to get away with the same behavior. She could point out that there are always plenty of Leftists dumb enough to provide cover for whatever you do, so long as you pretend you're the only thing between them and right wing ogres.
And then she can laugh, and explain why some unemployed multimillionaire like her can charge more than most people make in a year for ten minutes of drivel just because her parents are influential, and this is the family the Left has decided they want in the White House. Because it's all about the 99%, don't you know.
It gets better (depending on your definition of "better"): ticket sales for the event were $38,500. The school went $26,500 in the hole for this "coup."
Yale is getting Biden this year, Harvard gets Deval Patrick. I wonder if there is some unseen drama behind all this? Biden and Patrick figuring out a way to mention their speaking engagement to put Chelsea down.
"So, Chelsea, Deval and I are speaking at the Ivys' this June. You should really get into that racket, nice piece of pocket change . . . what? You are? But where? . . . Oh that's very nice . . . no really. University of Kansas is getting right up there in the big leagues, great football team. It's not like it's a community college . . ."
Here is a list of 2015 graduation speakers. The only conservative is David Brooks, the NYT's editorialist token.
She can tell people how to get a $500,000/year job doing nothing.
It gets better (depending on your definition of "better"): ticket sales for the event were $38,500. The school went $26,500 in the hole for this "coup."
Sounds like Hillary at the Boys & Girls Club where she charged way more than Condi Rice to speak, kept all of the money, and raised way less money.
In what world are these good or decent people?
Gusty Winds is right. Ani DiFranco is apparently available for under $50K, and while I don't agree with her politics at all, she's been a groundbreaker in changing the way the music industry works at a grass roots level. She'd at least have more interesting advice than "get born or marry into political power."
She is like a credentialed Khardashian.
My tax dollars at work....
Women's Hall of Fame? Where in our ghetto of special identity is that going to be built? Can you use the new Woman To Be Announced and Alexander Hamilton bills to pay for admission?
"I'd like to know what Gloria Steinem thinks of this. Steinem is a self-created woman —whatever you think of that creation — and she was less than half the price of Chelsea."
"What chumps!"
What Tim in Vermont said. Steinem has been a whore for the Clintons, and I assume she has no problem with a younger girls in the house commanding a higher rate. And a university is pimping the entire enterprise--is anyone surprised that that's how public universities spend our tax dollars, or that the average American votes for legislators who cut public university funding every chance they get.
" It kind of highlights what bullshit a women's hall of fame is. "
God I love Althouse.
Looking at that list of potential women speakers is actually pretty depressing. I know that there are countless women doing important things, and living their lives outside the public eye but why does that short list ONLY include journalists and Ms Steinem? There really aren't any women doing more interesting and substantive things?
The only conservative is David Brooks, the NYT's editorialist token.
I'm impressed you are certain of the political stylings of everyone on that list. Well done!
Michael said...
She is like a credentialed Khardashian.
Damn you. If the world ends up having to endure a Chelsea sex tape, you're taking the blame.
"The only conservative is David Brooks, the NYT's editorialist token."
So there are nothing but liberals on the list?
Chelsea can tell all about how you can get ahead in life if you're parents are super rich 1%ers.!
Chelsea strikes me as clueless and out-of-touch as her mother and even more devoid of personality. But, she's young enough that people will see and hear what they want to see and hear.
"Remember when Chelsea was a kid and we weren't supposed to make fun of her?"
That's when she was a kid; now she's an adult, with agency...and she's taking full advantage of it.
A pantsuit flutters its empty sleeves in the breeze.
A smile floats by a lectern.
A stifled sob sits in front of a picture window.
A land deal rots in the fridge.
Hilary 2016!
The truly sad thing isn't that Chelsea Clinton is a Rock Star.
It's that there are people who are registered voter who think she is a Rock Star.
And a university is pimping the entire enterprise--is anyone surprised that that's how public universities spend our tax dollars, or that the average American votes for legislators who cut public university funding every chance they get.
To be fair, often Speakers like the Clintons are paid for by student fees, and not out of taxpayer monies. But, that is maybe even a worse problem - my kid knows other grad students who have to take out student loans to cover their $1K a semester in mandatory student fees. So, if before the election, Hillary! comes out in favor of student loan debt forgiveness, keep this in mind - that a lot of the forgiveness money would end up in Clinton pockets.
Booking Webster Hunnle's daughter, could be a VERY interesting event if honesty and truth had anything to do with anything.
Post a Comment