The Stupid Season
Tweet
One of the reasons I avoided writing up an endorsement for so long (in addition to the fact that I wasn’t 100% sure who I would support up until a few days ago) is that people view what you write through a different lens than they normally would. I’ve made the decision in the last year or so to operate this site more like an op-ed column, which means I have my preferences but I still want to call things as I see ‘em, even if they hurt “my guy”.
I note this because when some people decide they don’t like someone, they throw logic way out the window. For instance, this venom from Matt Stoller because he doesn’t like Sen. Clinton:
Three, the Clinton’s have, how to put it, real character issues. I haven’t written this before, because I don’t believe in going after family members unless they make themselves an issue, but Chelsea Clinton, despite the opportunity to do anything she wants, chose to be a hedge fund manager. What does that say about the Clinton family commitment to public service? I write this because Clinton is using her daughter in an ad that says ‘My Mom taught me to stand up for myself, and to stand up for those who can’t do it on their own’, and then express pride at passing those values on to her daughter. What kind of value system is that? And what does it say that Clinton is bringing her daughter into the contest bragging about her daughter’s greed? This is one small example (Mark Penn is another), but it’s pretty clear that the Clinton’s have become in some ways Bourbon-esque aristocrats.
That’s one of the top five stupidest things I’ve ever read on a blog. Seriously. Somehow the Clintons have “character issues” because Chelsea works at a hedge fund? Seriously? Give me a break. Chelsea Clinton has chosen a private sector job because she wants to. She’s under no obligation to be in public service – considering the kid grew up in the White House, who the heck says she wants to be in politics any more than her connection to her mom and dad? Who would want to? Attacking Chelsea like this is a considerable low blow from Matt Stoller, especially when you consider that Matt’s own background is one of significant upper-class upbringing – going from Ivy League schooling right into politics.
It’s even sillier when you note that someone like Ned Lamont, who Matt pushed for so strongly, made millions in the private sector before running for office (and used the proceeds from his wealth to finance his campaign).
Advocating for or against for someone can be done from a position of common sense. You don’t have to go so over the line that you look stupid. But it does happen. Repeatedly.
13 Responses to “The Stupid Season”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Totally agree, Oliver. Stoller is in the wrong here. I mean, I can judge Stoller and say, “Well, why haven’t you dedicated your life to poverty, giving away everything you own to the poor? What kind of values does Stoller have, when he makes a profit through his employment?” Where’s the line, Stoller?
Would it be ungracious of me, Oliver, to remind you of a discussion we once had concerning the Bush twins? A discussion during the course of which you agreed that Chelsea Clinton should have been drafted and sent to the Balkans?
Probably, but I’m going to do it anyway.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/02/17/prince-harry-shows-up-barbara/#comment-125800
” Oliver Willis said:
I was more thinking of Somalia, but fine, Chelsea should have gone to the Balkans – we haven’t been stuck there in a death trap like Iraq, the few troops remaining there aren’t exactly being blown up by IEDs last I checked.”
Another wonderful example of convenient ethics, or IOKIYAR — “It’s OK If You’re Attacking Republicans.”
Oh, and for the record, I have no problems with Chelsea working wherever she likes and can get hired — I just wish you’d extend the same courtesy to the Bush twins. One of whom spent some time working with AIDS victims in Africa. The other worked with UNICEF in Latin America.
So, kindly explain what makes the Bush twins fair game, and Chelsea off limits? If anything, Chelsea is even more fair, because her father’s an ex-president and her mother’s a senator running for president.
Oh, and just to be perfectly consistent, I think all politicians’ kids should be off limits unless they choose to run for office or otherwise make themselves public figures on their own. They don’t get to choose their parents, so we shouldn’t hold them accountable for their parents’ deeds.
J.
The difference with the Somalia and the Bush twins is not so much those ladies choices, but their fathers.
Ths issue in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan is their fathers were perfectly willing to send other Americans sons and daughters in harms way but not their own…
Another difference between the Bush twins, as well as say, the Kennedy kids going into public service; while I’m sure Bill and Hillary aren’t hurting for cash, they aren’t “Old Money”.
We like to pretend there isn’t, and perhaps in our past history there wasn’t, but there IS a class system in this country, and the gulf between the true upper class and even the upper middle class is vast..
At a similar age as Chelsea, in the mid 80′s leaving college, I was facing a choice between a middle class and working class lifestyle choosing careers in music or Software Development. By working first in a job that let me put money away, I was able to spend several years in the late 90′s doing music full-time without giving up a comfortable lifestyle and forced to live in small apartments in neighborhoods with many roommates eating Ramen noodles…
Furthermore – the amount of ugly attacks by the “Right-Wing Noise Machine” that was focused on Chelsea Clinton when she was a pre-teen, can there be any wonder why she has no desire to be in the public spotlight?
“Would it be ungracious of me, Oliver, to remind you of a discussion we once had concerning the Bush twins?”
Yes Jay Tea, remind us of your stupidity. Comparing sending an underaged Chelsea to a war that was arguable a complete success to sending the Bush Twins, who were unemployed at the time (if I recall correctly) to a war that was based on lies and was (and is) falling apart.
I find it telling that you think you won that exchange. It just shows how incredibly stupid you truly are.
“So, kindly explain what makes the Bush twins fair game, and Chelsea off limits? ”
You can actually attack the Bush twins for what they have done. Do you not remember the drunken partying in Argentina?
On the other hand, what’s wrong with being a hedge fund manager?
——————————–
This needs to be separate so you have a chance to understand.
——————————–
The situation is different, therefore the rules are different. Just cause you can find one common element (children of presidents) doesn’t mean all other factors are the same.
Right there with you, Dan. I spent a good chunk of time ripping people for going after Chelsea Clinton. It’s part of why I don’t listen to Limbaugh, and part of why I won’t support John McCain.
What I don’t understand is what principle makes her off limits, yet doesn’t cover the Bush twins? Unless you want to make the children of privileged families less protected than others, I don’t see how they aren’t entitled to the same treatment.
J.
I was talking about the parents, not the twins. I’ve got no issue wiht them, and their personal decisions are of no matter to me.
“What I don’t understand is what principle makes her off limits, yet doesn’t cover the Bush twins?”
Who says this?
You can make fun of the Bush twins for getting kicked out of Argentina. That’s worthy of being mocked. If you can include an attack of pops for his fucked up war, great.
On the other hand, calling Chelsea a dog or attacking her for being a fund manager is not kosher, cause she didn’t do anything to get attacked in the first place.
How can you not see the difference.
The standard should be “would this be news if the person in question was not the child of someone famous?” In the case of the Bush twins, I’d have to say that college students getting drunk and doing stupid stuff in public hardly qualifies as “news.” Nor, for that matter, should Al Gore III’s escapades with driving while intoxicated and possessing controlled substances. (Well, the fact that he was driving a Prius AND got it up over 100 MPH almost qualifies as news, but not really.)
Kids can’t choose their parents. I consider all children of celebrities and politicians off limits until the child does something to indicate that they wish to become public figures in their own right. The Bush twins haven’t done that. Chelsea Clinton hasn’t. Al Gore III hasn’t. Mary Cheney hasn’t. John Roberts’ children haven’t. (Remember the speculation that his son might be gay, right up until it came out the kid was five or something? Remember the New York Times trying to unseal the adoption papers? I do.)
Lord knows there’s enough reason to dislike Hillary Clinton and not want her to be president. But I’ve always thought that one thing everyone could agree on was that she and Bill did a pretty good job raising their daughter. And if she wants to stay in private enterprise and not get involved in politics more than occasionally saying something nice about her folks, then more power to her.
It’d be nice, though, if the same courtesy could be extended to her peers in the “children of prominent politicians” club.
J.
“The standard should be “would this be news if the person in question was not the child of someone famous?” In the case of the Bush twins, I’d have to say that college students getting drunk and doing stupid stuff in public hardly qualifies as “news.”"
A country asked them to leave. A country that took in high ranking Nazi officials asked them to leave. That’s news.
“Mary Cheney hasn’t.”
… Dick Cheney brought up Mary Cheney first. And as a major player in his campaign, she is a public figure and hypocrisy in politics is always newsworthy.
“It’d be nice, though, if the same courtesy could be extended to her peers in the ‘children of prominent politicians’ club.”
This courtesy doesn’t shield them from legitimate complaints. Something you just can’t seem to grasp.
Matt Stoller: “I write this because Clinton is using her daughter in an ad that says ‘My Mom taught me to stand up for myself, and to stand up for those who can’t do it on their own’”
Seems to me, when the candidate brings up their child’s character in an ad, then the character of that child becomes open for discussion.
What has Chelsea Clinton done to stand up for those who can’t do it on their own?
She’s a hedge fund manager. OK. Fine. Got absolutely no problem with that. But if you can’t also point to her, oh, helping out in the Peace Corp, helping raise awareness of some social issue, spending time building homes for the homeless, or the like (and I have no idea what Chelsea has or has not actually done since I don’t follow her activities). If you can’t provide examples of her “standing up for those…” the her Mom using her in an ad to say she has is certainly fair game for discussion.
Ala Mitt Romney, she’s helping America by campaigning for her Mom.
“Seems to me, when the candidate brings up their child’s character in an ad, then the character of that child becomes open for discussion.”
And being a hedge fund manager is a character flaw?
SDM: “Seems to me, when the candidate brings up their child’s character in an ad, then the character of that child becomes open for discussion.”
CSS: “And being a hedge fund manager is a character flaw?”
No, of course not. And I never suggested it was. ON the contrary: “She’s a hedge fund manager. OK. Fine. Got absolutely no problem with that.”
Getting kinda tired with folks quoting part of what write I and then taking me to task for something other than what I said. It’s a JT move.