I just read an extremely disturbing post by Taylor Marsh.
I have always felt that both Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller, even before they left MyDD were very unfair to HRC. However, I am a Clinton supporter and tend to take criticism of HRC and the Big Dog to heart. Both Chris and Matt have criticized HRC extensively on her policies and stances, which I believe to be fair game. But is targeting Chelsea Clinton fair game?
Matt insinuates in Is Clinton a Weaker General Election Candidate that Chelsea is "greedy" because she works for a Hedge Fund.
...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?
Matt goes on to say:
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.
Matt further says:
Clinton made a choice to bring her daughter into the Presidential contest. Why? I don't know. But if she's going to do that, then it makes sense to look at those values. And they don't show a commitment to public service, unless you think hedge fund work is public service.
Am I missing something here? What's the crime in Chelsea supporting her mother? What does her choice in careers have to do with anything? Wouldn't any daughter or son support their parent's choice or decision (unless you're Rudy Giuliani's children)? Think about it. Even Mitt Romney's children hold substantial roles in his campaign.
Please read Matt's post and Taylor's post in its entirety. I agree with Taylor Marsh and find Matt's post to be over the line. Also it's Matt's blog, Open Left that proved the meme "Clinton's a Weaker General Candidate" is wrong when it did an Electoral College analysis using state-by-state, head-to-head candidate match-ups.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
