« Dems Announce "America's Town Hall" Convention | Home | Feingold: McCain "Calls 'Em As He Sees 'Em" »
No Decision Yet On Chelsea Clinton's Role At Dem Convention

The New York Daily News got a bit of a buzz going by reporting yesterday that Chelsea Clinton would be introducing her mother when Hillary speaks at the Dem convention on Tuesday night.
But Hillary spokesperson Mo Elleithee assures us that that isn't the case -- yet. "No decisions have been made," Elleithee says.
Any decision on this would be made by the Obama campaign, in concert with Hillary. I'm told that Chelsea is definitely being considered for the role, but it's far from official at this point.
Advertisement















Maybe she'll be the VP...
August 11, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the only Clinton I could stomach in that position.
August 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
so the clintons are bound and determined to make the convention entirely about the clintons.
its understandable giving hillary a speaking role.
but why does bill need to speak? and why the hell does chelsea?
this is ridiculous.
you almost get the feeling obama decided to let the clintons have the convention center.
maybe thats why he decided to go to the football stadium instead.
August 11, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea would just be introducing her Mother. Bill is a former Democratic POTUS.
August 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
so is jimmy carter. is he going to be speaking in prime time too?
August 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let another politician introduce Hillary Clinton, perhaps, Kathleen Sebelius or Senator from Michigan
August 11, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - respectfully - I understand why this is considered "news" (sorta), but do you really want to turn TPM Election Central into the place for Clinton psycho-drama, reporting on every twist and turn?
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
August 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for asking my questions.
August 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
word
August 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://thepajamapundit.com/
August 11, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea Clinton's role at the convention...Why?? and to what end...this is going beyond stupid and something I really did not want to see. If someone wants to talk about celebrity, well, she's one. God, I hope noone seriously considers her a democratic party leader!
August 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why??"
She's one of three members of the Royal Family. That's why.
August 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The von Clinton Family Singers. They travel as a pack, when one of them is President, all of them is President, when one of them runs for President, all of them run for President, when one of them loses, they all demand a major role in the convention of the winners.
Hey I get, Senator Clinton and President Clinton speaking at the convention, but their kid? Because she was a surrogate? What not have Mark Penn introduce Senator Clinton, he had more to do with her success than almost anyone else.
August 11, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
She should wear a t-shirt saying---"John McCain lied when he said Janet Reno is my father."
August 11, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roger Clinton is tending the bar.
August 11, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah, it looks like you beat me to the punch on this joke. In the time it took me to compose my own reference to Roger, you got one posted. I tip my hat to you.
August 11, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same here. I really should read comments before posting. :)
August 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have they got a decision about Socks the Cat yet?!
Geez....
August 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Socks will do the Dems response to McCain's acceptance speech during the GOP convention. He'll lick himself and then cough up a furball.
August 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd tune in for that!
August 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Introducing her mother seems like an appropriate role, but really, I can't remember any other political offspring being given a role purely on that basis unless they are the actual candidates' children.
I also find it unseemly that Chelsea Clinton all of a sudden looms so large in the Democratic Party. It's also unseemly that Ted Kennedy wants his wife Vicky to run for his seat. Dynasticism is not a good thing. Give Chelsea her moment and then let her get on with the rest of her life, which, hopefully will include some endeavor other than elected office.
August 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unseemly is right as to the Clintons. Creepy even. Good to hear Roger is working the bar; do they have any other relatives?
This is all negative for Obama. Negative: straight, no chaser. Hopefully it won't matter.
August 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't the Bush twins speak at the last Rep. convention?
August 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they did speak. However, there father was the nominee and the republicans were attempting to portray the president's family life during that night of the convention.
This is different. To make it similar, you would have the Obama girls introduce their father the nominee.
August 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only was he the nominee, he was the sitting President... Far different that the Clinton situation... Having Chelsea introduce HRH is simply a ploy to remind us all that the Clintons are the only family in America ready and able to rule - oops, I mean, govern - this country.
August 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was the perspicacious gentleman on the other thread who thoughtfully offered,
"Why can't Billary just fuck off already?"
August 11, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea is least neurotic of the three. If just Chelsea would speak.....
August 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Let them all talk. Give the Hillarites the chance to yell and scream and holler and fall on the floor and wet their drawers. Let them get all that sore-loser rage out of their system.
Catharsis.
August 11, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two brief remarks:
1) First it was Bill Clinton, and that made sense because he is a former president of the United States and a first rate public speaker; fine. Next it was Hillary Clinton, and that also made sense because she is a very important member of the party and played a very large role in the primary campaign; also fine. Now it is Chelsea Clinton, who is far less important in the party and far less intuitive a choice to speak. Still and all, she is bright and talented and easy to look at and she is probably a good face for our party to put forward, so I say "fine." I really do draw the line at her, however. When the announcement comes that Roger Clinton is being given a slot on Wednesday afternoon, I am going to flip out. ;-)
2) As long as we are making this convention into some sort of Clinton family reunion, has there been any talk of George Clinton warming up the crowd before Obama's speech?
August 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Clinton? Now that would make me tune in to C-Span!
August 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
August 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tear the roof off the motherfucker!
August 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to forget Roger's crucial role in the Clinton Administration: his last-minute pardon.
Now THAT was a statesman-like move on Bill's part. It really reassured the nation to know that Roger Clinton was not having to pay for his crime like other folks.
August 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this democratic party or dynastic party ?
August 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON. CLINTON ALL THE TIME. 24 HOURS OF CLINTON.
in fact, this should just become the "add a Clinton to a movie title" post. i'll start:
What's Eating Hillary Clinton?
Clinton Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Sisterhood of the Traveling Clintons
One Flew Over the Clinton's Nest
The Silence of the Clintons
Citizen Clinton
A Clockwork Clinton
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Clinton
and who could forget last year's Oscar winner: No Country For Old Clintons.
August 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a nice, feel-good movie, but it just wasn't believable.
August 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, exactly why does Chelsea deserve a speaking role and for that matter any role at the convention? This entitlement mentality of the clinton camp should have ended with her loss in the primary. Enough said.
August 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY.
August 12, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before you know it, this week will be over and all we will be talking about is Obama's VP pick. This is how you drown out McCain: with the one couple the media CAN'T get enough of--the Clintons.
August 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Obama ever say "no" to the Clintons? If Chelsea only gets to stand onstage and wave with M&D, would that be the end of the world for hardcore Clintonites? I guess my question is, does Obama really need their votes that badly?
August 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Michelle Obama speaking?
August 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, I hope so. And not just as an afterthought.
August 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Key note speaker on Monday
August 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, excellent.
I headn't heard anything about her speaking and was all ready to be outraged if we we're talking about Chelsea fucking Clinton speaking before Michelle.
August 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay nepotism!
August 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
People,
I'm in the rare situation of completely disagreeing with most of you. Chelsea is a lovely young woman, who is by all accounts smart and presentable. I don't have a problem with her as the younger face of the Democratic party. In fact, I think it's a great idea.
And introducing Hillary is a perfect role to play, a bit sentimental (which is appropriate in this context).
I strongly supported Obama (and still do), and I didn't support Hillary in the primary, but an introduction by Chelsea would be a good moment in a convention with lots of good moments.
August 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...younger face of the Democratic party."
Is she actually involved or planning on getting involved in politics?
I get Hillary and Bill speaking, but Chelsea is unnecessary.
August 11, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"unnecessary," maybe. Still a good idea.
She's (1) already involved in politics, having campaigned for her mother for the primaries, (2) she will get more eyeballs than the average twenty-something, and it's a not a bad idea to have a twenty-something speak anyway if we want to increase the youth turnout, and (3) it's an introduction, not a keynote address, and because she'll be introducing her mother, it will be very sweet and moving.
I think many of you are letting your dislike of the Clintons get in the way of objectivity. Two questions: who would you rather introduce Hillary, and would that person get more people to watch than Chelsea?
August 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you make good points.
August 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO ONE will be watching either of the conventions on TV except for the acceptance speeches by Obama and McCain.
Unless Chelsea and the other 20-something "new faces of the party" are going to get nekkid and do a pole dance, no one will be tuning in.
August 11, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton should be introducing his wife. Tuesday would then be the one night everyone would idolize the Clintons.
As it stands, they are monopolizing two of the four nights of the convention. Bill is doing everything he can to hog the spotlight reserved for the VP nominee. Anyone open to taking bets that Bill's speech is a repeat of 1988, causing Obama's VP to cool his heels???
August 11, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unnecessary"? Probably, but that is not the same as unhelpful. I have no strong feelings one way or the other on this subject, but I am broadly inclined to agree with Ryan S here that she will help more than she hurts. A good looking young lady introducing her mother leaves viewers will all sorts of warm emotions in reaction. I agree that it is not "necessary," per se, but it is gravy on the meat of Obama and Clinton.
August 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a "good-looking young lady" who is best known for having campaigned strenuously against the Party's nominee and is the daughter of two of the other speakers, who are at least widely suspected by the populace of hoping for (and some of whose supporters are working for) a Democratic loss?
I think not.
August 11, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree; the convention is not about second coming of Clinton. There are hundreds of student's activists that can feel that role. Please stop this idea of notoriety and embrace the folks that are doing the heavy lifting at the grass root level
August 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
chelsea is not the face of the young democrats at all. People such as myself and others are doing the hardwork at the grass roots level. If you want to pull one of the grass roots people in and reward them, please do.
However, putting this person in because she is in the lucky sperm club is absurd. Saying she represents the young democrats or the democrats at all is absurd. She is a person that got ahead because of who her parents are. She is a person who is a hedge fund associate. She is not in line with the average person at all and if someone attempts to put her on such a pedestal she will be ripped down by the media.
Simply put, NO NO NO.
P.S. If chelsea seriously wants into this arena she should get use to being put under the spotlight and answering reporters'questions.
August 11, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A-freakin'-men!!!
August 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does the Convention has to be about Clinton? Please give us someone else. We don't need the Clintons psycho drama any longer.
Bill should only speaks for 10 minutes and get him out there for the real VP after that time slot. We do not need Clintons' drama at the convention.
August 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it were just about rewarding hardwork, sure, there are plenty of great young people who could do it. But it's also about getting people to watch.
August 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bill should only speaks for 10 minutes."
In your dreams. The last time Bill Clinton spoke for only 10 minutes, it was on voice-mail.
August 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
damn now we have to make Chelsea happy.....
August 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares?
Once she agrees to start answering questions from the press, I might care what she has to say.
August 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Roger's role? How could we have forgotten him?
August 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who gives a damn about Chelsea Clinton's role?
August 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Barack given the speaking slot in '04 because he was a young, dynamic representative of the future of the Democratic Party. Honestly, I like Chelsea, but wouldn't it be quite a step back to have her filling this role in '08 by comparison? It might be a nice moment, but would lack a powerful theme or substance. Of course Barack's speech in '04 didn't deliver the White House to Kerry, and the Convention is largely irrelevant.....So why am I still talking about this? TPM, help me out here!
August 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, chelsea is not being given a key note speaker role such as the one that Obama had in 2004. She is being given the opportunity to introduce her mother. That is all.
With that said, she does not deserve or qualify even to be given this type of role. If the day is going to be about women in politics, the introduction of Hillary should be handled by someone that is an up and comer in politics and is a women. maybe the governor of michigan, governor of kansas, a female senator, etc.
chelsea simply is not qualified at all for this role.
August 11, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, she's there because of who her parents were plain and simple. She's done nothing on her own to be in the national spotlight and the party is MUCH bigger and more diverse than just the fucking Clinton family. There are dozens if not hundreds who would be more qualified to speak at the convention.
August 11, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is the bargain that finally gets the Clintons off the stage.
They lost their grip on the Democratic party when Obama won the primary. This is a negotiated settlement to feature them throughout the convention in return for more than half-assed support for Obama in the GE.
Think of it as a 'last hurrah' and it's a lot easier to swallow, so to speak.
August 11, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because we must be reminded time and time again - the Democractic Party is the Party of the Clintons, not the People.
I'm reminded of what Mark Shields said last Friday on News Hour: Hillary's speaking Tuesday, Bill on Wednesday - "What more do they want?"
They won't give up until they have it ALL, including a roll call. It's their gamble that Hillary will usurp Obama on a floor vote. Personally, I say give them the roll call. Hopefull, there are enough delegates as disgusted as me, so Her Royal Highness will see the majority of her delegates rally behind Obama, denying HRH the close and/or winning vote she and Bill desire.
August 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely why I was against Clinton in the first place. Same reason I was against Bush.
There are over 300 Million people in this country. It's supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, let's kill the fucking dynastic tendencies and stop anointing people because of the family they come from!!
August 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her "role"? what? excuse me, please leave her alone with her nice hedge fund job in London. Give me a freaking break!
August 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea spoke at the Democratic State Convention in Austin in June. She came across as a bright, polite, wide-eyed 16-year-old. Omigosh!
August 11, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks to me like a Clinton three ring circus. Hill and Bill cavorting as the garish, made up clowns, and Chelsea as the midget, also garrish, riding in circles on her little bicycle. Did not Chlesea go along with the Bosnia lie? She learned fast, I would say.
I have little respect for the Clintons, the whole three of them. They get no second chance from me.
August 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea Clinton's Role? Are we going to open up a concession stand for brother Roger too?
August 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oilbama is a self-absorbed celebrity who ducks meetings with wounded American troops and wants to raise taxes. All three Clintons should take a vacation somewhere during the DNC convention. Throwing support Oilbama's way after he and his DNC enablers slimed Hillary and stole the primary election is disgusting to see. Let this turd Oilbama and his DNC enablers sink like a stone in the general.
August 11, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have said your piece. Long ago. We understand.
You wish for Obama to lose the election. We got it. Now why don't you run along.
August 12, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've come to the conclusion that there is no 'last hurrah' for the Clinton's. There's nothing that he'll be able to do to "get them off the stage" and allow him to act as the de facto head of the Democratic Party from now until election day. We'll have to live with that, and I think that we'll be able to. But don't fool yourself in thinking that "if only we do this one more thing, the Clinton's will act nice". That's just not the way this is going to play out.
August 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should have been a responce to Stranger @1:12P.M.
August 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know, hello.
Wishful thinking on my part.
It would be damn nice if they could take a hint, though, wouldn't it?
August 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see no harm in Chelsea introducing her mother, but she is going to have to get and perform in some type of public office or a key party position before she deserves a role in future conventions.
She also needs to get about 8 years older before such ideas as the Vice Presidency are constitutionally possible.
August 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you?
August 11, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Chelsea Clinton need a role?
At this point I am extremely tired of hearing about the Clinton family, and if these "Clinton only" supporters make a scene at the convention I'm going to be pissed. She lost please get over it, there is nothing she can do now but hurt the party. Everyday I hear the Clinton name the closer I am to switching to independent.
August 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The decision needs to be made now. If the Hillary night is suppose to be either
1. about the Democrats breaking the glass ceiling and stereotypes associated with women in politics
2. or about the Clintons and their absurd notion of entitlement
I for one, hope the night is about the first option. If it is, than a prominent up and coming women leader/politician should introduce Hillary. Someone that is doing well on a state level and will be a potential prominent person in the years to come on the national level. Guess what, chelsea does not fit this mold at all.
If the clintons make it about just them that night, than it will be a day forgotten at the convention and serve as another moment/opportunity squandered by hillary.
August 11, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink