Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 22:42     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.


They are just so blah and unimpressive. Chelsea seems smart and accomplished.


They're perfectly fine (and no I'm not a republican or a Bush supporter). The difference between them and Chelsea -- they are not fame seekers. I realize Chelsea says she doesn't want to be in the public eye -- but really she wouldn't mind it; she pretty much said it in her Vanity Fair article that she wants a more public role, would consider running for office, has an agent etc. I'm not shocked -- she may be smart and on the shy side, but she's been raised by fame whores and some of that sunk in. In contrast look at George and Laura now -- you don't hear about them much at all and that's of their own choosing. They could hold a 2 day event with a foundation to coincide with the UN also, they just don't do those things; thus their daughters seem to have taken the message that it's ok for life to be more "private" (NBC notwithstanding though it's not like Jenna is revealing her own life on the Today Show any more than her colleagues do).


Working for a TV channel does not say "not fame seeking" to me.


And she is terrible! It is clear that she only got the job b/c she is a Bush.


And of course Chelsea got her TV gig because she was the best qualified and most experienced out of hundreds of candidates.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 22:40     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:Also the Clinton fam is first generation famous. Bill and Hilary have this inherent need to stay relevant and Chelsea is a part of that; Chelsea has talked about carrying on her parents' name. The Bushes have been famous for generations, so it's not shocking that every single kid in the family just doesn't care about that anymore.


I have no opinion on the Bush girls or Chelsea Clinton. They each seem alright and I wish them well.

But I have to disagree that the Bush family's next generation is eschewing politics. George P. Bush (maybe to be known forever as "Pee"?!), son of Jeb (to make it confusing) is running for state office in Texas (even more confusing, as he is from Florida) and has ambitions to be governor, just like his Uncle Dubya and his Florida daddy. The Bushes are like the Republican Kennedys, but with smaller teeth.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 22:24     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
I still can't get past Jenna's speech impediment...

I wish Barbara were more in the public eye. She was always the smarter and more articulate twin.

As for Chelsea, I'd much rather she reproduce than any of the Palin spawn.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 22:07     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.


They are just so blah and unimpressive. Chelsea seems smart and accomplished.


They're perfectly fine (and no I'm not a republican or a Bush supporter). The difference between them and Chelsea -- they are not fame seekers. I realize Chelsea says she doesn't want to be in the public eye -- but really she wouldn't mind it; she pretty much said it in her Vanity Fair article that she wants a more public role, would consider running for office, has an agent etc. I'm not shocked -- she may be smart and on the shy side, but she's been raised by fame whores and some of that sunk in. In contrast look at George and Laura now -- you don't hear about them much at all and that's of their own choosing. They could hold a 2 day event with a foundation to coincide with the UN also, they just don't do those things; thus their daughters seem to have taken the message that it's ok for life to be more "private" (NBC notwithstanding though it's not like Jenna is revealing her own life on the Today Show any more than her colleagues do).


Working for a TV channel does not say "not fame seeking" to me.


And she is terrible! It is clear that she only got the job b/c she is a Bush.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:42     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.


They are just so blah and unimpressive. Chelsea seems smart and accomplished.


The Bushes come from money so the girls don't try so hard. Chelsea is second generation money so she works hard. We'll see how the next generation does.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:40     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.


They are just so blah and unimpressive. Chelsea seems smart and accomplished.


They're perfectly fine (and no I'm not a republican or a Bush supporter). The difference between them and Chelsea -- they are not fame seekers. I realize Chelsea says she doesn't want to be in the public eye -- but really she wouldn't mind it; she pretty much said it in her Vanity Fair article that she wants a more public role, would consider running for office, has an agent etc. I'm not shocked -- she may be smart and on the shy side, but she's been raised by fame whores and some of that sunk in. In contrast look at George and Laura now -- you don't hear about them much at all and that's of their own choosing. They could hold a 2 day event with a foundation to coincide with the UN also, they just don't do those things; thus their daughters seem to have taken the message that it's ok for life to be more "private" (NBC notwithstanding though it's not like Jenna is revealing her own life on the Today Show any more than her colleagues do).


Working for a TV channel does not say "not fame seeking" to me.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:37     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Also the Clinton fam is first generation famous. Bill and Hilary have this inherent need to stay relevant and Chelsea is a part of that; Chelsea has talked about carrying on her parents' name. The Bushes have been famous for generations, so it's not shocking that every single kid in the family just doesn't care about that anymore.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:33     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.


They are just so blah and unimpressive. Chelsea seems smart and accomplished.


They're perfectly fine (and no I'm not a republican or a Bush supporter). The difference between them and Chelsea -- they are not fame seekers. I realize Chelsea says she doesn't want to be in the public eye -- but really she wouldn't mind it; she pretty much said it in her Vanity Fair article that she wants a more public role, would consider running for office, has an agent etc. I'm not shocked -- she may be smart and on the shy side, but she's been raised by fame whores and some of that sunk in. In contrast look at George and Laura now -- you don't hear about them much at all and that's of their own choosing. They could hold a 2 day event with a foundation to coincide with the UN also, they just don't do those things; thus their daughters seem to have taken the message that it's ok for life to be more "private" (NBC notwithstanding though it's not like Jenna is revealing her own life on the Today Show any more than her colleagues do).
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:28     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.


They are just so blah and unimpressive. Chelsea seems smart and accomplished.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:24     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Marc' s father tried to use bipolar disorder as an excuse for his fraud. No idea if he really has it or not. If he does, there is a genetic component. Combine that with looking slovenly and unhappy a lot starting in late 20s and it is a possibility. She would have her hands full, that illness or anything close is very hard on a marriage and on kids. You play cheerleader during down times or clean up during more impulsive phases. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/the-clinton-in-law-marjorie-margolies-100696_Page2.html#.VCdhGmDD9cs
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:24     Subject: Re:Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why are you lazy if you have enough money to support yourself and you want to take a few months off? Also, I do not think either of them is unattractive.


What are you smoking?


Post your picture so we know what your standard is based on.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:23     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.


I agree and think the criticism of them is rather interesting, in light of so many DCUM comments indicating that many posters engage in similar behaviors in college and think it's fine.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:21     Subject: Re:Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Last thing this world needs is another Clinton. God save us.
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:20     Subject: Re:Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Chelsea seems to be a lovely, intelligent, and compassionate person. I wish her every happiness as a new mom!
Anonymous
Post 09/27/2014 21:09     Subject: Chelsea Clinton had her baby!`
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would much rather my kids turn out like Chelsea than like the Bush girls. I think the Clintons did a great job with her. She seems smart, articulate, can stay out of the limelight, etc.


Chelsea is an only and her parents are self-made. The Bush twins are not. I don't know why they are they way they are because Laura seems like she would have raised great kids.


Actually one of the Bush twins is or was a charter school teacher in DC. I think they turned out Ok.


I think the Bush twins turned out perfectly fine. One is a teacher and the other is with NBC and comes across quite likeable. Everyone just wants to harp on their behavior in the Bush White House -- they weren't raised in the WH like Chelsea. I believe they were already in high school or college by the time their dad won, so they went from having normal teenage freedom to having Secret Service dictating where they could and couldn't go -- and they acted out. Should they have held it together better -- yes. Is it necessary that someone who acts out at age 17 won't end up being a perfectly responsible 30-something professional -- no.