Carr: Don’t cry for Chelsea | Boston Herald:
"Meet America’s newest victim — Chelsea Clinton.
Nobody knows the troubles she’s seen.
Chelsea’s got a right to sing the blues.
Last week, in the Los Angeles Times, someone named Ann Friedman laid out the former First Spawn’s credentials as a modern Democrat in good standing.
Chelsea is oppressed, as opposed to, say, another first daughter with blond hair.
“Chelsea,” Friedman wrote, “like her mother, never gets a break — unlike Ivanka and her father.”
You don’t say.
Now that I think about it, it really must be arduous being Chelsea Clinton.
This L.A. Times op-ed appeared a day after it was reported that after a nationwide search, she’d been added to the board of Expedia, a travel company owned by Clinton-connected billionaire Barry Diller.
The pay: $250,000 a year in stock options, plus $45,000 cash.
It’s her second no-heavy-lifting director’s gig at a Diller company — she also grabs $299,936 a year for sitting on the board of something called IAC Interactive.
Nice work if you can get it.
How did her father’s aide, Doug Band, describe her?
A “spoiled brat.”
In the WikiLeaks emails, Band said she had dipped into Clinton Foundation funds for “her V.I.P. wedding,” which he described as “not smart.”
But then, how could a graduate of such lofty institutions as Stanford, Oxford and Columbia possibly concern herself about such mundane matters as the provenance of money.
“I was curious,” she was once quoted as saying, “if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”
What exactly are Chelsea’s credentials?
She made $600,000 a year “working” for NBC News alongside anchor-fraud Brian Williams. Somebody did the math on her on-air packages (put together by a producer, of course) and discovered that she was paid $26,724 for every minute she appeared on NBC.
...“The laser-focused Chelsea vitriol is perplexing when it comes from the left,” writes Friedman, who is easily perplexed.
“Shouldn’t such first-daughter hatred be reserved for Ivanka?”..."