Jenna Bush Makes Us Proud
Posted on May 10th, 2008 in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »
She marries today.
Meanwhile, a certain other presidential daughter, having spent several years working at a consulting firm and going to fashion shows with Gwyneth Paltrow, is now working at a hedge fund and campaigning for her mother.
(One wonders: Has she been asked to resign or take leave from that fund, Avenue Capital? Or is the fund only too happy to continue paying Chelsea in the hopes that she would be a direct pipeline to the White House? If anyone were paying much attention to Chelse, this would be considered influence-buying, pure and simple.)
Meanwhile, Jenna, the young woman once derided as a party girl, taught at a charter school, volunteered for UNICEF, and wrote a book about poverty and HIV in Central America.
Did I mention that Chelsea worked at McKinsey & Co. and now works at a hedge fund?
Let me be clear: I wish no offense to people in the financial business, which does many good and important things.
Although I do wonder how Hillary can rail about Wall Street “greed” given her daughter’s employment.
I just believe that a child fortunate enough to grow up in the White House has a particular responsibility to give back.
Jenna’s dad may be a really, really, really bad president…but she seems like a pretty good daughter.
20 Responses
5/12/2023 9:56 am
Hey, gotta say, in stretching to find new ways to bash Hilary, you’re striking a new low…..in writing. The typo notwithstanding, this is just drivel. Affluent child of prominent political family gets job on Wall Street. Campaigns for mother. You pose the question whether influence peddling is going on — without, admittedly, any evidence whatever. You slag her for doing glamorous things — like going to fashion shows. (Somehow I suspect you wouldn’t be turning down such invitations.) You suggest that she ought to be “giving back” — which, arguably, she’s doing by participating the her mother’s campaign. Please. You can like Jenna’s “all grown up” act if you like. But if you’re going to attack Hilary, or Chelsea for god’s sake, eat your Wheaties first and give us something real to think about.
5/12/2023 10:03 am
Participating in Hillary’s campaign is giving back? Please. It’s more Clinton power-mad self-aggrandizement.
5/12/2023 10:14 am
“I just believe that a child fortunate enough to grow up in the White House has a particular responsibility to give back.”
This seems a slippery slope argument. Might one also argue that a child fortunate enough to grow up in relative affluence and attend an ivy league college has a particular responsibility to give back rather than, say, edit a magazine that is part of a social networking site for rich Harvard alums? This is not, by the way, the argument that I would make. It just seems a little odd to draw the line so righteously with Chelsea Clinton’s choices when your own (and likely most of your readers) while not necessarily as profitable, are hardly saving the world.
And do you really think campaigning for your mother necessarily constitutes Clinton power-made self-aggrandizement?
5/12/2023 10:26 am
I can’t decide which is more salient: your naivete or your overreaching. I’m beginning to think your issues with Clinton are gender-based.
5/12/2023 10:27 am
No, not really a slippery slope argument: Growing up in the White House is a unique experience. I used to work quite closely with someone who spent several years of his life in the White House, and his public-minded activities were an integral part of his life; I still meet people who tell me stories of working with John on a charter school or the Special Olympics or the Kennedy School or some similar public service project. Pretty much every aspect of his career had a strong element of giving back, and that was well-established by the time John was Chelsea’s age. I haven’t yet seen a single aspect of Chelsea’s career that could be similarly described.
And John would laugh at the idea that you would campaign for a relative running for president but refuse to speak to the press….
5/12/2023 10:50 am
You’re right, Chelsea is not JFK Jr. But your argument is still self-righteous.
5/12/2023 10:52 am
Wow….you’re holding up the Kennedys as the alternative to “power-mad self-aggrandizement”? That isn’t a slippery slope; that’s Mount Everest!
Also, unlike some of the Kennedys, who actually can be pointed to as substantial contributors to society, the fact that John — in between parties — lent his star power to events run by others, thus allowing starstruck participants to later share their stories with you, doesn’t rate. He was a DA….ok. Not a good or terribly committed one. Then, what….he started a magazine….about how politics and celebrity coincide. To quote a phrase, where’s the beef?
5/12/2023 11:06 am
I plead guilty to being a little self-righteous on occasion, Anon1. That said, I am not so self-righteous as to think that one can campaign as a surrogate for one’s mother and not take questions from the press.
Anon 2, your knowledge of John’s public service activities is entirely lacking.
Here’s a small example:
http://jfkjrinstitute.cuny.edu/
5/12/2023 11:19 am
I stand corrected. I’d never heard of the JFK Jr. Institute. Why, I ask? Is it because just maybe his involvement was limited to lending his name and a small portion of his inheritance…..as children of privilege so often do, when they aren’t writing children’s books or pursuing other image-building exercises? Forgive me if I’m not impressed. Kennedyesque public service is so bound up with self-aggrandizement that frankly I question virtually anything they do. You’re attacking Chelsea because she’s not like the Kennedys, but as far as I’m concerned, that might actually be in her favor. Basically, aren’t you just skimming the surface here?
5/12/2023 11:32 am
Actually, that’s just nonsense. I won’t speak of all the Kennedys, simply because the set of people I’m talking about children who grew up in the White House. But John devoted an enormous amount of time to public service works, and it wasn’t because he planned to enter politics one day but because he believed in that very deeply.
Here’s another example of a group John was deeply involved in:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E0D7113EF93BA35751C1A96F958260
5/12/2023 12:09 pm
More of the same, I’m afraid. Are you really unaware of what a huge circle jerk of self-congratulation/aggrandizement this kind of thing is….the Robin Hood Foundation being a prime example? Don’t get me wrong — these foundations do good work, and I think it’s great that celebrities like JFK Jr. get involved in them, but it costs them very little to do so and as far as I’m concerned it’s as much about social status as anything else. It’s the people behind the scenes who should be feted at big foundation dinners — but that doesn’t bring in the bucks, so instead they salute JFK Jr. in memoriam. All fine and good, but I still say you don’t have a case against Chelsea.
5/12/2023 12:27 pm
Hmmmm…actually, Anon, it sounds like I know more about these foundations, and certainly about John’s involvement with them, than you do.
That said, I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
5/12/2023 12:37 pm
Interesting comment…I’m always ready to agree to disagree, and I’ll grant you an insider’s knowledge of JFK Jr.’s social/charitable commitments, but why does it sound like you know more than moi about foundations of this sort? Frankly, sounds to me like you know less….either that or you drank too much kool-aid at the last one.
5/12/2023 12:44 pm
Because, within the narrow context of this blog-post discussion, your defense of Chelsea is merely an assault on celebrities and their involvement with charitable organizations. (And in John’s case, you were simply wrong.)
We can agree that many celebrities’ involvement doesn’t extend much beyond showing up at parties, but in the cases we were actually discussing (White House kids), you haven’t said anything that shows that you know what you’re talking about.
I’d love to hear a more affirmative defense of Chelsea. Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong. Happened before. But you haven’t provided a whit of evidence to back up your defense of her…..
5/12/2023 12:58 pm
Oh how befuddled thou art. Lets be clear. I’m defending Chelsea Clinton from the completely unsupported attack you mounted on her and I’m doing that by pointing out that your attack was baseless and unfair because it rests on a faulty premise. You now want me to accept that premise — i.e., that all presidential kids must “give back” (see Jenna Bush!) — and then defend her by proving that in fact she’s done lots of good works? No thank you.
5/12/2023 2:03 pm
Meanwhile, Jenna Bush, who I agree has been doing admirable things, has married a scion of a prominent Republican family, and is being groomed for higher office. Jenna will most likely continue to do nice admirable things like other Republican wives, supporting her husband, making him look like a compassionate conservative. If she were truly going to go out and strike it on her own, instead of simply repeating her mother’s experience, then I would have a little more respect for her.
Just what the world needs — more Republican wives with their charity causes, while their husbands pursue policies that worsen poverty, income inequality, homelessness, global warming, etc, ironically making the need for charity solutions all the greater.
5/12/2023 2:38 pm
If Chelsea had stayed home and baked cookies instead of going out on the campaign trail we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
5/12/2023 3:31 pm
So, Think Twice, she has to stay single or marry a Democrat to have any respectable impact as a woman?
I often find your comments thoughtful - even if I disagree - but to go ahead and pronounce judgment on the meaning of her entire life, at age 23/24, just because she married a Republican is tawdry business, to be sure. Perhaps you should occasionally think thrice. 😉
5/12/2023 4:32 pm
I still fail to see why Chelsea Clinton, or Jenna Bush for that matter, is more responsible for doing “good works” than the rest of those of us who also have been given many advantages that we didn’t earn for ourselves. It seems like either one should argue that everyone who is able should “give back” or one should have a different standard.
5/12/2023 4:49 pm
Egret — fair point. She may surprise us with her career. I’m just saying that so far, her career path is very conventional — while her PR sense is excellent. She’s a shrewd cookie when it comes to flacking herself. Hence, the constant rain of stories of how thoughtful she is, giving back, etc, etc.
I think the comparisons to Chelsea are absurd — they are two different people and should be judged separately — but I actually think Chelsea should get some credit for pursuing a career in the private sector. Her name and connections may have gotten her the job at McKinsey, but anyone who knows anything about McKinsey knows she wouldn’t have lasted one day there if she weren’t smart and hardworking.