"We open with a glimpse of young Chelsea reading the newspaper at home in Little Rock 'as I ate my morning Cheerios,' before discussing world events with her parents, which she did 'around the dinner table every night and intensely after church on Sunday over lunch.' As she grows up and moves on to trips to India and other global crisis spots with her mother, somehow the stories don’t get much more exciting. On the evidence we get here, she is a kind of humanitarian Tracy Flick, but there is no comeuppance or sudden twist of fortune on the horizon. As bighearted as she is, hers is not the kind of voice that makes for a riveting children’s book. Young readers crave emotional directness, and they appreciate a little buildup and suspense. As a glimpse at the children’s best-seller lists makes clear, they respond best to stories of people in extreme situations, people who face major problems, struggle and triumph, like 'I Am Malala,' a book that shares many of Clinton’s empowering goals. Chelsea Clinton, however, is not Malala (who also had an experienced co-author), and would have been wise to step back a little from the flow of the book."
From a NYT review of Chelsea Clinton's new book, which is (irritatingly) titled "It's Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going!"
There's no "look inside" view at the above-linked Amazon page, so I can't form even a superficial opinion about whether it's like Hillary's first book, "It Takes a Village/And Other Lessons Children Teach Us." Why is it, after all these years, that a woman going into politics enters through the door marked "Children"?
Hillary's book purported to teach adults lessons that came from children. The lessons came from her, but the title told us she got them from children. Chelsea's book is aimed at children, getting them quickly up to speed with lessons from adults. Children should naturally resist that kind of instruction, but that won't stop adults from buying the book... if they want their kids politicized early and they have confidence in the Clinton brand. I hope there aren't too many adults like that. Not ones with kids anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
77 comments:
Like huge payments for nothing-burger speeches, the book allows for $$ bulk purchase (then straight-to-dumpster), the money, thus sufficiently laundered, flowing to a Clinton.
Mission accomplished.
I'd go for melodrama. The story high isn't very high, but the subsequent lows afterwards keep getting lower and lower, providing contrast.
There's no "look inside" view at the above-linked Amazon page, so I can't form even a superficial opinion about whether it's like Hillary's first book
There is however a 'listen' button, where Chelsea herself narrates.
'Listen' and judge for yourself.
Surely she mentions the time she and her Mom came under sniper attack when they landed in Bosnia?
She needed to throw in a "bullets on the tarmac" episode, or two.
Actually, Hillary entered politics through the door marked "Husband" but I agree she did the children's book to show her human side (which, as it turns out, she doesn't actually have).
Is the Foreword by Web Hubbell?
Nothing says privilege like Chelsea!
Chelsea's ONE big accomplishment in life is being born to Hillary and Bill.
Hillary's ONE big accomplishment in life is staying married to Bill.
So why do we pay any attention at all to either of them?
Why is it, after all these years, that a woman going into politics enters through the door marked "Children"?
I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin didn't use that door. Carly does not appear to be using it either.
amielalune nailed it. Hillary is always and only, The Drab Dour Dowager.
Zero accomplishments. Significant damage to the Republic.
Chelsea would be far better off staying in quiet anonymity, where her absolute lack of abilities and skills could remain unnoticed for the world at large.
What anyone sees in the Clintons I simply don't understand. What a worthless gang of corrupt nullities.
Could the three of them just take their money and please go away? Leave us alone.
I think the words "strives for relatability" are the kiss of death.
Tracy Flick was at least good at something though, right?
Also, am I misremembering or was an older authority figure (teacher) having inappropriate sexual relations with a younger subordinate woman (student) not a major plot point of Election? Is that something the NYT means to associate in any way w/the Clintons?
Gee. Book sounds interesting. I wonder if Chelsea's read it yet.
Chelsea Clinton - born on 3rd base, thinks she hit a triple..........
I always call Bravo Sierra on the "talked about world events over my Cheerios." Everyone says that to prove expertise and commitment to the world's welfare ever since the Bobby Kennedy's said that was their family life. Alec Baldwin and others keep claiming these things.
I guess I had the only family were we talked to each other about what happened at school that day, etc. Better families discuss the world. Well we did when my mom would say, "kids in Africa would love to eat the roast beef you are refusing right now."
Chelsea dabbling at yet another job. She'll consider herself an accomplished expert at all.
Ever get the feeling that the Clintons secretly believe they're casting pearls before swine?
Chelsea's ONE big accomplishment in life is being born to Hillary and Bill.
Remember what Bill said to Juanita Broderick? "I'm sterile. I had mumps as a baby."
Now, go take a look at Webb Hubbell, and then tell me where Chelsea found those fish lips.
Why would I take advice on how to get something done with my life from an unemployed person?
"In a book that tackles the biggest challenges facing us today, Chelsea Clinton..."
We are fucking doomed.
With Chelsea’s supposed net worth pegged at $15 million, how can the Clinton narrative ever relate to families with underwater college grads living in the basement. Especially in a Democratic Party built on resentment and anger at privilege.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Tracy Flick was at least good at something though, right?
Yes, and she won in the end, which renders the "some sort of comeuppance" line nonsensical.
Is there a dedication to Vince Foster?
She should have had a section on how she dealt with the trauma of seeing so many people connected to her parents die under questionable curcumstances.
I looked at Chelsea Clinton's bio on Wikipedia. Actually it isn't a bio, it's a pedigree, like looking at the bio of someone in the family of a foreign monarch. (What was she intending to do with a Master of Public Health degree from Columbia? Run a hospital?)
If Mrs. Mezvinsky wants to prove her writing chops, she needs to write under a pseudonym. If she can become a best selling author as "Hester Trask," then she will have proven that she is not just another pretty face. Well, maybe not the best choice of words, but you know what I mean.
Why is it, after all these years, that a woman going into politics enters through the door marked "Children"?
In thinking about this rather general assertion, it seems to me that it's actually only the case for a woman of the left. It's further evidence of what I think to be the fact: leftism is rather childish in it's worldview and philosophy. Leftism does not appeal to adults. Leftism offers the (false) promise of extended adolescence.
Being a grownup is hard.
"In a book that tackles the biggest challenges facing us today, Chelsea Clinton..."
Read that with the famous movie voice-over guy's voice in your head.
First question I have is: "Who is the ghost writer?
Nothing I have ever seen indicates to me that Chelsea can string 5 sentences into a compelling paragraph
Whoa!!
Hillary is also trying to become relatable!!.
Do you suppose they use the same PR people?
"I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin didn't use that door."
Sure, she did. PTA.
"Could the three of them just take their money and please go away? Leave us alone."
If they go away, they won't get no mo money. Excellent grifters. They deserve more respect.
Nice product placement for Cbeerios. Most authors would use the word cereal instead. Chelsea Cheerios sounds even more like a kid's cereal.
Hillary's ONE big accomplishment in life is staying married to Bill.
My ability to snark at this is limited by the fact that I've never done anything half as difficult.
"It's further evidence of what I think to be the fact: leftism is rather childish in it's worldview and philosophy."
Or maybe not childish so much as infantile.
The anger and resentment at these wealthy entitled people is remarkable. You guys are starting to sound like Democrats.
Chelsea has an interesting story to tell, but, absent great financial need, she'll never tell it. I grew up believing that JFK and all the Kennedy's were great family men. Can't you blame me for being cynical and distrustful about talk of the happy family lives of politicians? Chelsea, in particular, has a tough sell when it comes to painting a rosy picture of domestic bliss......Dull people generally have happier marriages so maybe she'll be able to make a go out of her own marriage.
AReasonableMan said...
The anger and resentment at these wealthy entitled people is remarkable. You guys are starting to sound like Democrats.
These people obtained their money by pedaling government influence. The Democrat's response to people with a lot of money is giving the government more power.
Who here is suggesting giving the government more power?
A story where the protagonist doesn't encounter any meaningful opposition and setbacks simply lacks drama.
Chelsea Clinton's tale of two heterosexual parents who stayed married, had high powered professional jobs, and ensured that she had the best education that could be procured for her is boring. Most peoples lives are boring, even famous people.
Malala comes from an exotic and foreign land where actual evil people (the kind of evil where they throw acid in the faces of young girls that don't go along with the program) hold sway. She actually stood up to them at the risk of her own live for something that everyone in our society takes for granted, the right of girls to be educated, to learn how to read and write.
Malala was actually shot and could have died.
Chelsea Clinton flew to India with her Mom and saw some poor people.
I wonder what Chelsea's advance was? Malala's?
The anger and resentment at these wealthy entitled people is remarkable. You guys are starting to sound like Democrats.
Republicans are less enamored of dynasties than Democrats tend to be.
I will grant Chelsea one concession, she has seen actual poor people. You pretty much have to get out of the developed world to see actual living in a hut made from refuse from a garbage dump with no access to clean water or medical care, wondering what you are going to have to do that day for food, poverty.
Boooooring!
Ann Althouse said...
"I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin didn't use that door."
Sure, she did. PTA.
I thought "hockey mom."
What about Carly Fiorina, though?
But Palin actually began her political career being elected to the school committee!
Reminds me of when I get a physical, my lifestyle is so healthy I'm 'dull' & 'boring' to the doctor.
"The anger and resentment at these wealthy entitled people is remarkable. You guys are starting to sound like Democrats."
Democrats don't have the monopoly on resenting entitled people. I think it's one thing that can bridge the partisan divide.
They could go full reality T.V---Move Roger in there, Bill starts his own brand of cigars with the Cubans, Anthony Weiner drops by with Huma etc.
They could aim for Kennedy compound celebrity---Have the grandkids trotted out like the Royal Family once a month for commemorative photo-ops, playing with 3rd-world children on manicured lawns...
That said, I think we've got some fading 60's boomer idealists, an old tragically flawed statesman and smooth talkin' Bubba; part of a fairly seamy political power couple hopping on the global secular humanist foundation-a-thon and still trying to cement their legacy and prove their worth to the 'Establishment.'
At least Chelsea seems like a decent person, I'll give them that.
The discussions of world events over the dinner table reminds me of Carter saying he asked his 13-year-old daughter what she thought was the most important issue and she told him it was control of nuclear weapons. It's a weird world where 13-year-olds are wise enough to give policy advice but 18-year-olds who enlist in the military are still "children".
Renee said...
But Palin actually began her political career being elected to the school committee!
Which is the same number of elections that HRC has won.
I suspect that Palin's first election was tougher than HRC's first one.
damikesc said...
Republicans are less enamored of dynasties than Democrats tend to be.
Have you met the Romney's and the Bush's?
Ridiculous. A kid whose only success in the world was completing her pregnancy. WTF does she have to add to this world's fund of knowledge? Well maybe how to be part of a huge , successful scam.
Incidentally the WSJ has an editorial about the new college scoring regime that mentions that "Laureate ( a for profit college) paid Bill $16.5 million to serve as its “honorary chancellor” from April 2010 to April 2015." $3.3 mil a year for an honorary position!
"Have you met the Romney's and the Bush's"
News flash - no one's enamored with the Romneys and the Bushes
While plenty of Democrats still are enamored by the Kennedy dynasty.
And pining for a Clinton Dynasty.
"Have you met the Romney's and the Bush's?"
Yeah, that's why Jeb is doing so great in the polls. Pretty soon Trump is going to bail out of the primaries cause Jeb is beating him so bad. And that neurosurgeon dude too.
AReasonableMan said...
The anger and resentment at these wealthy entitled people is remarkable. You guys are starting to sound like Democrats.
9/15/15, 9:49 AM
If Democrats were actually resentful and angry at wealthy and entitled people Hillary! wouldn't be running and most Democrats in Congress wouldn't have been elected. What's your excuse for voting Democrat instead of Communist?
AReasonableMan said...
damikesc said...
Republicans are less enamored of dynasties than Democrats tend to be.
Have you met the Romney's and the Bush's?
I don't think the appeal of Mitt had anything to do with George. No one outside of Michigan remembers George Romney. As for the Bushes, we now have the unappeal of the dynasty thanks to W. At least GWB didn't write a book before he had a real job.
"The anger and resentment at these wealthy entitled people is remarkable. You guys are starting to sound like Democrats."
Yeah, ARM! And just look at all those comments above calling for the Feds to take massive amounts of the Clinton money to fund right wing projects!
"It Takes a Village/And Other Lessons Children Teach Us."
"The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face." -- J. Handy
>>What anyone sees in the Clintons I simply don't understand. What a worthless gang of corrupt nullities.
They're good at sticking it to conservatives. That's pretty much all that matters.
Have you met the Romney's and the Bush's?
Mitt gave away his inheritance and rebuilt it.
And Bush ain't leading in Republican polls. Hillary is.
@Althouse, Hillary was a PTA president? For which of Chelsea's schools?
My point being that wife of the governor may be a more prestigious "job title" than PTA president, but the latter lets your friends and neighbors see your capabilities and effectiveness, and those friends and neighbors elected her mayor and then governor.
Jenna Bush Hager and her twin sister Barbara are worth a thousand of Chelsea. Apiece.
damikesc said...
Mitt gave away his inheritance and rebuilt it.
Bullshit. He gave away a lifetime of privilege and advantage, his father's prestige with the church?
Bullshit. He gave away a lifetime of privilege and advantage, his father's prestige with the church?
He gave away the money.
What, exactly, did Ted Kennedy give away? Besides herpes, I mean...
Let's see--for the Bushes, the only personal scandals we know of were W's alchohol and drug problems which he overcame for the sake of his family, and arguably his daughters drank while under 21 (horrors!). In all three cases they went on to productive lives.
The Romneys don't even have drinking in their past--squeaky clean!
Bill Clinton smoked pot, which is not a huge deal, though his lame dissembling about it showed his character. He also molested, harassed and plausibly even raped a number of women well into his adulthood. His wife and daughter don't really have personal scandals (beyond their involvement in his insider trading and influence peddling schemes) but haven't any accomplishments either.
The Kennedys? Ok, I challenge any Kennedy fan to agree to have a Kennedy chosen at random to pick up your daughter at the airport. I'm guessing you wouldn't do that if you loved your daughter.
As far as political legacy, both George and Mitt Romney had pretty decent records as governors (and liberals might acknowledge their civil rights records if they weren't in the partisan wind tunnel). Bush Sr. had an underrated presidency and a solid career of public service. While Bush Jr. was by no means a great president, he was at least average when one considers the challenges he faced.
Bill Clinton accomplished nothing of significance, and was a caretaker during our holiday from history. He had opportunities to take advantage of the strong economy but did nothing for tax reform, entitlement reform or frankly anything else. It was like having no one in the White House at all.
JFK started the Vietnam War, dragged his feet on Civil Rights, and began the runup of overspending that would leave a mess by the 1970s. He also nearly caused major wars with his Cuba and Berlin bungling. It was like having a particularly incompetent dog running the country. An incompetent dog that slept with underaged women and got goofy on painkillers the whole time. The less said about other Kennedys the better.
Some dynasties are better than others, but I note the GOP does not seem to be handing the nomination to Romney or Bush--both had to or will have to overcome a lot to get past the anti-dynastic feeling in their parties. And this after both were successful governors, constrasted with Hillary's joke tenure at State.
"What, exactly, did Ted Kennedy give away? Besides herpes, I mean..."
Ted Kennedy also gave away the money! Lots and lots of taxpayers' money. What can be more generous than making someone else pay for something?
Ted Kennedy also gave away the money! Lots and lots of taxpayers' money. What can be more generous than making someone else pay for something?
True. As I've said, I prefer muggers to politicians. At least muggers don't expect me to thank them for stealing my money.
Caroline Kennedy. Amy Carter. Chelsea. What is the deal with these D daughters that are so dead behind the eyeballs? (The Bush twins were "trouble." I think I prefer trouble.)
The NYT reviewer praises Jenna Bush's book, Ana's Story, "which in 2007 offered young readers an intimate account of one Latin American girl’s journey from orphaned H.I.V. baby to single mother and, like “Malala,” allowed readers to empathize with another young person’s struggle." She must have really hated Chelsea's book.
If she wrote a book like this, she would be more interesting: < http://thekellycarlinsite.com/companion/ >
Idiot scion writes poor book demonstrating how pathetic our political class is. She was born on home plate and will never have to deal with any of the issues 99% of americans have to deal with.
@Achilles, IMHO you've got it. Chelsea and her mother don't have any idea what it's like to be in the middle class, so they hypothesize about it and miss the mark badly.
It is interesting that in the GOP, the rank and file tend to hold the "dynasty" as a negative--Jeb's poll numbers are weak and if he got the nomination it would be despite his brother, not because of him--while I haven't heard any peep from Democrats to the extent of "no more dynasties". For the so-called "people's party" the Dems seem far more accepting of hereditary rule than the GOP.
Well, of course it's a dull book. Chelsea is a dull girl.
I did give it a listen. She drones on much like her mother. I don't imagine her target audience will stick with it for very long.
Why did Hillary enter through a door marked "children"? She long has had an interest in "children's rights." I think it comes from having been raised by a tyrannical father. After law school, she did a year of postgraduate study on children and the law and worked as a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. She argued that children should not be "powerless" and presumed incompetent and should have advocates who would represent them in disputes with their parents.
She considered CDF founder Marian Wright Edelman a mentor. Edelman, a self-identified socialist, believed children were the most effective means for instituting socialism. You start, for example, with a government health insurance program specifically for children, say SCHIPS. You gradually expand it to first include parents and then work your way up to all-inclusive. Eventually one day, voila, socialized medicine. Hillary turned to this approach when her health care initiative failed.
For Hillary, it not only takes a village to raise a child, it's preferable.
Post a Comment