Blogger: “I have more examples of Chelsea’s general insufferability. How about the fact that she used the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds” while 1.) Corresponding with her mother and 2.) Raising money for the totally-not-corrupt Clinton Foundation? Or how about how she lied for her mother (or played dumb, at least)? Or how about how she has regularly danced around actually addressing the real conflicts of interest concerns surrounding the Clinton Foundation? Or how about how she constantly attempts to paint herself as a child political prodigy? Who could forget her story about the pro-choice revelation she had at the young age of six.
“I was raised in a Methodist church and I left the Baptist church before my dad did, because I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school — that’s a true story.”
Six-year-old Chelsea– a political genius in the making. Seriously. Why else would she tell us that? And if that’s not enough to prove how unlikable she is, perhaps this will convince you. People who have worked under her say she’s highly unpleasant. She’s not a likable person in real life. In fact, she actually caused “high turnover” at the Clinton Foundation.
But none of that matters to her adoring fanbase. Chelsea scores points for merely existing.
She’s uninspiring and dull. She gets awards for “volunteering” for HER OWN ORGANIZATION. She’s the human participation trophy. That’s why I can’t stand Chelsea Clinton.
Does everyone view Chelsea as a bitchy, unlikable braggart? From Chicks On The Right: She didn’t do anything to get to where she is today. She only has a platform because she has the right last name– the last name that magically absolves one of all guilt. The last name that forces everyone to put on bizarre political blinders. The last name that calls for unadulterated worship. Chelsea doesn’t know the first thing about working her way up to become something. Everything has been handed to her on a silver platter. I’m supposed to find inspiration in that? She never got her hands dirty. She never opened a business. She never employed anyone. I could go on.
Chelsea constantly attempts to weigh on political issues on Twitter– whether it be jobs, the economy, the climate, women’s rights or free speech. Am I really supposed to be inspired by someone who never truly had skin in the game and who has no special insight on those topics? What makes her opinion more relevant than mine?
She never had to freak out over paying bills or finding a job. She never had to worry about one of her businesses failing, and I’m sure as heck sure she never had a problem accessing her “rights as a female”– aka birth control. Seriously. Why does Chelsea’s opinion have more weight than everyone else’s? Am I really supposed to take her seriously when she says stuff like, “I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t“?
She had a $3 million wedding (thanks Clinton Foundation!). She lives in a multi-million dollar apartment. This isn’t about her being rich. It’s about her pretending to be like us, and people like us actually looking up to her, as if she’s an inspiring figure.
Views: 27
