Lion of the Blogosphere

Chelsea in the Podesta emails

with 28 comments

The headline of a Daily Caller article by Blake Neff: Podesta: Calling Chelsea ‘Not Smart’ Is An ‘Understatement’, but that’s a big, and probably intentional, misinterpretation of what Podesta meant.

My impression of Chelsea (often abbreviated CVC in the emails), based on her mention in several emails, is that she’s a naïve goody-two-shoes, and she can be that way because she had the benefit of having everything handed to her on a silver platter. She didn’t have to fight and claw her way to the top through morally-dubious political wheeling-and-dealing like her parents did, or for that matter how many of the people in her parents’ inner circle did. Being born already at the top allows one to have a moral purity lacking in those born to lesser stations.

And that’s why the rest of HRC’s crew doesn’t like Chelsea, because they are running a corrupt organization and they have to hide that from her and deal with her purity. Plus she may also be somewhat of a spoiled self-centered rich brat on top of that.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 5, 2016 at 10:21 pm

Posted in Politics

28 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. She’s Catherine from Veep

    Ziel

    November 5, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    • I have not watched Veep.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 5, 2016 at 10:26 pm

      • HBO has been running in a marathon. It’s on HBO on demand.

        Worth the watch.

        Steve Johnson

        November 5, 2016 at 11:04 pm

      • Man, you’ve got to. It and Silicon Valley are two of the funniest shows on TV right now. It’s a very foul-mouthed and cynical take on politics (It has a British pedigree naturally) and I wonder what will happen to such a, shall we say “deplorable”?, world view if the schoolmarm gets elected.

        Lionel of the Richiesphere

        November 6, 2016 at 1:06 am

      • Lion,

        I highly encourage you to watch Veep. It is truly hilarious.

        What is interesting is that, even though the characters do some despicable things, they are genuinely likeable and the show does not revel in the crapulence presented.

        Well worth a look…and, remember, I regard all television as nothing more than propaganda.

        map

        November 6, 2016 at 1:33 am

      • Veep is excellent, the creator’s previous political show the “Thick of It” is even better.

        With the thoughts you'd be thinkin

        November 6, 2016 at 6:13 am

  2. I’ve read articles saying people at the foundation don’t like her because she’s a hateful bitch.

    destructure

    November 5, 2016 at 10:52 pm

  3. Pithier: Doug Band, the original speaker whom Podesta was amplifying, was talking about Chelsea’s indiscretion in talking to outsiders (apparently GWB’s daughters) about her audit of the foundation. So yeah, naive about the criminal implications, as any non-lawyer would be. wasn’t about her acuity generally, though highly likely there’s some fall-off from her dad.

    mel belli

    November 5, 2016 at 11:28 pm

  4. I thought people were a little rough on her about the “I don’t care about money” thing. I didn’t think she meant she doesn’t care about having money. I assumed she meant she doesn’t care about making money. Why should she? I wouldn’t if I were her. Some people continue to fixate on making even more money after they are already set. I assumed she was saying she’s not one of those people.

    Greg Pandatshang

    November 6, 2016 at 12:59 am

  5. This guy doesn’t think Chelsea is that innocent. Start at 3:20 to 4:20.

    ttgy

    November 6, 2016 at 1:48 am

  6. Chelsea earned her PhD at age 36. Thirty damn six. She’s not a dummy necessarily; but clearly she has no ambition. Thank God.

    hard9bf

    November 6, 2016 at 1:47 am

  7. Being recruited by Mckinsey, she can’t be stupid because this firm recruitment is entirely geared at solving problem skills provided you’re up-class and not autistic nor rude. Among top grades, i noticed the criteria would be 50% don’t have the CV they want so they don’t even meet them, and the remaining 50% are too ugly or without anay aura not self condident people, 30% on top of that don’t understand business or are not interested in solving business problems, and then they select 1 in 10 only on IQ exercices. That’s why on average they land an offer to 1% of applicants. I have never seen a firm with a recruitment so well organized and not random (Goldman Sachs makes candidate see up to 30 people, but the process is much more chaotic). You can’t work at Mckinsey if your IQ is not >130 and i would say they’re average people is 150.

    Bruno from Paris

    November 6, 2016 at 3:16 am

    • I’ve gone through the McKinsey process Bruno. I would say you’re correct about the numbers, but wrong about the process outcomes. As I was walking on the floor, a few times I saw a mixed race black guy or a higher proportion of women than the bell curve would suggest. I would guess his IQ was about 120 from his physiognomy, eye brightness, race and eating habits. He didn’t qualify, but McKinsey are desperate for Non Asian Minorities and women like any other organisation.

      Even if Chelsea was not the former president’s daughter, she would still only need a 120IQ I’d say.

      People with >140 IQ aren’t called by McKinsey. They find a way in, even if they’re not a NAM or a woman or from an upper class background. Its a terrific process and they are very helpful, professional, and encouraging. They explicitly say that non Ivy League people who are top level they aren’t worried about finding if they don’t send guys to Arkansas campus or the University of Timbuktu, they’ll get there if they want it and Mckinsey will send consultants, directors and HR to help them through with practice materials, videos and coaching.

      A great firm with competent people.

      I’m sure that in its earlier days, religious aspects were there as well. Nobody is immune from convention.

      The Philosopher

      November 6, 2016 at 9:05 am

  8. After closer examination of the USC crosstabs, I have decided to remove the poll from the Otis Index. Their numbers for Hispanic and Other Non White voters are in outer space. This changes the current Otis Index from Hillary +0.2% to Hillary +1.38%.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 6, 2016 at 3:28 am

    • “Their numbers for Hispanic and Other Non White voters are in outer space.”

      What does that mean?

      Rifleman

      November 6, 2016 at 8:57 am

      • The have Trump getting 42% of the Latino vote and outright winning the Other Non White vote. The extremely pro Trump PPD has Trump winning 30% of the Latino vote and 33% of the Other Non White vote.

        Nate Silver was right about USC: worthwhile for tracking changes in the race but if you want it to have any predictive value you need to subtract 4 from Trump’s margin.

        The poll simply doesn’t meet the high standards of the Otis Index, but if I was going to add it back in I would change it’s topline margin of Trump 5.6 to Trump 1.6.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 6, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      • The have Trump getting 42% of the Latino vote and outright winning the Other Non White vote. The extremely pro Trump PPD has Trump winning 30% of the Latino vote and 33% of the Other Non White vote.

        But Otis, several points.

        1 – look where the “latino” vote is concentrated. – California, NY, Illinois, Texas!

        Doesn’t matter, Trump can’t win 3 and most likely can’t lose the other.

        2 – Not all latinos are the same. Trump is doomed with NY Dominicans and Puerto Ricans but he will probably do well with Florida Cubans. Influx of Puerto Ricans is bad.

        3. – not sure about latinos in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado. But remember US latinos are not all thrilled with Mexicans swarming into their areas or their JOBS. Many might be pro Trump for that reason esp Nevada, not sure.

        4. Asians are all over the place. Filipinos are much more likely to vote Trump than Japanese Americans who might as well be SWPL/liberal White people. Vietnamese, Koreans etc who knows but if they are concentrated in California, NY, Hawaii or Washington state or Maryland it doesn’t matter. That’s an electoral college overkill. Not a problem for Trump.

        I know I’m engaging in wishful thinking but that happens when death is right around the corner.

        Rifleman

        November 6, 2016 at 12:32 pm

      • We know that Trump isn’t doing as well with Latinos and Other Non Whites as USC not just because of common sense but also because of the PPD crosstabs. PPD’s crosstabs are Trump’s best case scenario with non white voters.

        I think Trump will win pop vote by 1%. USC’s 5.6% margin is fantasy world.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 6, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    • After closer examination of the USC crosstabs, I have decided to remove the poll from the Otis Index.

      IBD is +1 Trump thanks to him now leading among Independents by +9.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 6, 2016 at 10:32 am

  9. I’m not sure why Bill has to hustle either. He has a 200k pension and you throw in the occasional book or over sea speech and he would be doing quite well with or without the foundation. The pension is really a joke although Carter may need it. Why were Bill and Hill hustling so much? Besides being greedy baby boomers surrounded by rich entertainers that skewed their perspective, I think they just wanted a massive war chest for the Presidential run in case the donors were a little tight particularly in the primary. Having a huge foundation with a massive payroll was a legal pay off of your fellow Democrats who, like they did the last time could prevent her from becoming President. Possibly, Chelsea doesn’t even want her mom to be President.

    mark

    November 6, 2016 at 9:50 am

    • I don’t understand it either. Bill makes between 150000 to 450000 per speech. Now maybe if he wasn’t peddling influence he couldn’t make that much, but I’ll bet he could still make a lot.

      If he just gave 10 speeches a year at 100,000 ,that’s 1 million.

      Hillary could have gotten a 1 million per year job at a big law firm.

      Or she could have just given speeches too.

      Add in a few board seats.

      They could have easily pulled in 2.5 -3 million a year.

      ttgy

      November 6, 2016 at 7:09 pm

  10. IHTG

    November 6, 2016 at 11:23 am

  11. Lion, At first I thought the pedo ring stuff on Twitter was low IQ prole right wing stuff, but now I’m not so sure. I think it might be true, going back to Epstein’s island, which someone here mentioned.

    gothamette

    November 6, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    • If you are really doing illegal stuff, you don’t put pictures of it on your walls for everyone to see it.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 6, 2016 at 5:17 pm

      • Lion,

        I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the fact that Bill took a ride on the Lolita express, and the Epstein has/had an island devoted to pedo activities. The emails may be full of code.

        gothamette

        November 6, 2016 at 6:37 pm

  12. Step aside, Podesta – more DNC emails!

    Turns out CNN really is an arm of the DNC:

    IHTG

    November 7, 2016 at 2:36 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: