Sunday, April 23, 2017

We Scored An Interview With Chelsea Clinton!

We have big news today. Chelsea Clinton has been big in the news lately as the left continues their search for their next savior and the Clintons pimp her to continue their obsession with power. Well, we scored an interview... sort of. Avante!

Question: Now, you're a child of privilege who's never achieved anything that didn't come from your father's fame and you failed at every softball job that was handed to you on a silver platter. How did you become such a strong woman?

Answer: Well, aren't all women strong women, really? I mean, except for actual strong women and Republican women. But every worthless, useless liberal woman out there is a strong woman. Am I right? It's so hard to be a woman.

Question: Hard? Are you suggesting women are biologically defective?

Answer: Um... I don't understand.

Question: Of course you don't. Let's go through your work history to see if you're qualified for anything except graft, shall we?

Answer: What's graft?

Question: A way of life for your family. Now, you apparently worked for McKinsey & Company from 2003 to 2006 before switching to Avenue Capital Group, right? No one seems to know what you did. Did you actually do anything? Clinton Associate Daniel Halper said, “She’s never had a [real] job. She’s been in college for 12 years.”

Answer: I'm sure I did something. I had a Masters in International Relations and degrees like that prepare you to do so much.

Question: I'll do the comedy. Now, lest anyone think you got those jobs on merit, allow me to point out that you were also a co-chair for the fundraising arm of the Clinton Foundation, correct?

Answer: I'm sure they hired me for merrick. The problem was: “I was curious if I could care about money on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

Question: But it was other people's money you were caring for... retirements... life savings, things people needed to live. You couldn't care about that?

Answer: I don't care about money.

Question: Or your clients apparently. Anyways, even though you started at Avenue Capital at the end of 2006, did you not spend 2007 and 2008 campaigning for your mom Hillary on college campuses? So you only "worked" a month or two. Couldn't hack it?

Answer: I hacked it. But it was more important that I reach those kids. We changed hearts and minds.

Question: And yet, your mom got her ass handed to her by a newbie, right? In fact, didn't Obama win record support among the very people you were supposed to win for her? You must really suck as a campaigner.

Answer: You're not Matt Lauer, are you?

Question: Do I look like Matt Lauer? Longtime Clinton Associate Doug Band said of your campaigning, “She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues because she, as she has said, hasn’t found her way and has a lack of focus in her life.” That's harsh.

Answer: People aren't allowed to say mean things to me. “I wish that I had had one galvanizing ambition that I could reverse engineer my life toward.”

Question: But you do. It's called Clinton Inc. In fact, since 2007 you've basically become a tool of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, haven't you?

Answer: What kind of tool?

Question: I was thinking a ho. They even changed the name to include your name, didn't they? That is on the part they didn't need to shut down over questionable (read: illegal) practices.

Answer: I want to help people.

Question: Just not protect their savings. Anyways, you were always my favorite prop in your dad's campaigns. I love how the Clintons used the "attacks" on you to demand sympathy and declare you off-limits from all those meanies only to turn around and let the New York Times run 87 puff pieces on you. In fact, you have been described as having "gotten the most coverage of any presidential child ever."

Answer: You're not allowed to say anything bad.

Question: I'll take that under advisement. When you campaigned for your mom, I find it interesting that you refused to give interviews to the media or respond to questions from the press.

Answer: They ask mean things.

Question: How did you feel when MSNBC report David Shuster characterized your participation in your mom's campaign as "sort of being pimped out"?

Answer: He was a meanie.

Question: Now you give speeches for money, right? You get paid $66,000 a pop... not bad for someone who doesn't care about money. Isn't that more than you need?

Answer: People like to pay me to give speeches.

Question: Oh, I see. What kind of speeches?

Answer: Speeches on improving global and prosperity for health and women. I give them for the Clinton Foundation. Like we told the New York Times, my speeches "are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation."

Question: And yet, you are growing rich? Gee, that doesn't smell like graft. Have you no shame?

Answer: What is shame?

Question: Pretty much every act your family has ever undertaken. See, I'm told you're worth $15 million, but I see no job or opportunity that would have legitimately let you earn that money. How did you make that money?

Answer: Iduno.

Question: Here's a clue. Didn't NBC hire you at some point too?

Answer: No.

Question: Yes, they did. I remember you. They gave you the most fluffy of softball assignments and you sucked donkey d*ck. You blew rhinos. You were horrrrrrrible.

Answer: I lasted three years! How bad could I be?

Question: Oh yeah, you lasted three years all right. You made your debut in November 2011 as a special correspondent. You did a couple interviews. You sucked. Even liberals said you sucked. One network executive said you “acted like we should be grateful that she was in the room.” An NBC producer said, “This is my challenge with her... people in television constantly interrupt each other, but when you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish. She is not used to being interrupted that way." And your interviews were paaaaaainful. So NBC yanked you after a couple weeks, told everyone how amazing you were, and then claimed the relationship was always meant to be a three month contract only. You never appeared for them again. Yet, they paid you until you quit three years later... $600,000 a year. Was that bribe money?

Answer: Why would anyone bribe me?

Question: Gee, I have no idea Mrs. CLINTON. In 2015, someone paid you to write a book aimed at middle school students, didn't they? This turd dealt with a full range of social issues, likely not including graft, and was roundly criticized for being crap. So you couldn't be a reporter, the easiest job ever outside of actor, and you couldn't write a children's book. You're not very talented, are you?

Answer: My mom says I am. I'm married. Let's talk about that.

Question: All right, let's talk about your unsavory husband. His name is Mezvinsky and his parents were Democratic House of Representative members, which makes this feel like an arranged marriage. His father embezzled more than $10 million in a Ponzi-scheme and was found guilty in 2001. His mother divorced him after the conviction and filed bankruptcy. Junior founded a hedge fund called Eaglevale Partners and lost 90% of the firm's assets.

Answer: I love him so much.

Question: The Wikileaks release of Podesta's emails indicated that your hubby used your contacts with the Clinton Foundation to find investors. Is that true?

Answer: Oh, look at the time. I need to go. I'm not running for office, unless I am... byyyye! //giggle giggle

//Races out door

That struck me as informative. You? By the way, you really need to read this article: LINK. It's an amazing take down of Chelsea. This one is good too: LINK.


LL said...

Chelsea will be the next US Senator from New York. Maybe she'll take Chuck's seat?

Anthony said...

A terrible person with a known name but no principles? Doesn't strike me as a strong candidate, but we live in strange times.

BevfromNYC said...

LL - Chels is eyeing...well, others are eyeing, a seat for her in the House. Ironically it is the the seat that Rep. Ntia Lowey holds. She is famous for stepping as side so Hillary could run for the Senate. Though Chlesea and hubby Marc would actually have re-locate to Westchester County to establish residen...oh, what luck! Mom-n-Dad bought the house next door to theirs in Chappaqua last year! And they could just keep their Manhattan townhouse for fun...

Like her Mom, she wants to be "persuaded" to run....or rather "begged" which is the Clinton way.

But seriously, the poor girl needs a job...

tryanmax said...

They say the Republicans are the conservative party, and yet it's the Democrats who are obsessed with political dynasties. Yes, I know we've had father-son Bushes on the GOP side, but primary voters jumped at the chance to reject Jeb! as soon as other choices became available and he hasn't been heard from since.

tryanmax said...

BTW: Charlotte 2052

AndrewPrice said...

Too soon, my friend. Too soon.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, Supposedly, they are grooming her to take a House seat first, but either way I think she will get into the Senate unless something changes dramatically.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I think the fact they are treating her like a Princeling is evidence of just how bad their current lineup is. There really are no young Democrats anyone cares about. Chelsea, a corrupt, manufactured creature from a two-time loser mother is the best they have. That's pretty pathetic.

tryanmax said...

I'm still trying to work out what's going on with Chelsea's face in that Variety cover. I'm not saying they Photoshopped her head onto someone else's body, but at the very least, the art department overworked it. It just looks...wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I love the comparisons to Caroline Kennedy. I think they are spot on.

At some point, you would think New York would feel ashamed of itself for becoming the dumping ground for idiot children of once famous people, but I guess not.

Either way, Chelsea is just awful. As far as I can tell, she's failed at everything she's ever done, no matter how easy they made it for her -- except being a bribe taking machine. She has no ideology except liberal platitudes and sayings from posters with cats "Hang in there!". She offers nothing.

I can't imagine any legitimate party running her for anything. But then, the Democrats are hardly legitimate.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It is very strange. I suspect they whitened her teeth, jokered up her smile, shrank her eyes, removed the bags, and removed every freckle or bit of Rosasia to give her almost a porcelain color.

They also dressed her in a hipster jacket which doesn't fit and looks horrifically unwearable (it's pulling her arms back) and they made her lean far forward (like the patty in a burger shoot) to hide her stomach give her an unusual angle to make her appear "edgy" and "fun."

Very manufactured.

Plus, her laugh is a fake laugh that real people don't use. Could be manipulated, could just be their best attempt at "give us your biggest laugh."

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The left has always been obsessed with the man rather than the thought. They love kings and dictators and messiahs. When they choose a political candidate, they don't look for someone with good ideas, they look for someone to have a crush on.

Chelsea is just the latest in this regard. They love the idea of the child of someone they loved before being someone they can love now -- look at all the dynasty's on their side, chief among them being the Kennedys -- because it confirms that they finally found a superior bloodline to lead them.

The problem is, Chelsea just sucks and she may suck even too much for them. Seriously, read the two articles and you will see how bad she rubs them wrong.

tryanmax said...

The teeth whitening is a given. I personally think they re-composited her face from multiple shots.

AndrewPrice said...

It's definitely longer and thinner than normal. She has hamster cheeks normally and that bone structure is missing here.

I think though this the result of the pose. She is leaning a good foot to 18 inches forward to achieve that pose and hide her neck.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The more I look at it, the more I'm getting the sense from her muscles that she's almost doing more of a scream than a smile to get that pose. Smiles don't normally tighten your neck muscles and stretch out your cheeks. To the contrary, I would say that smiles loosen your neck muscles and cause your cheeks to get fatter. Yet, the opposite is happening here.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, The more I look at it, the more it haunts me. LOL I'm hesitant to guess too much. I only know that her head looks like it's about to float away.

For a point of comparison, she did an Elle magazine cover just under a year ago. That one looks pretty touched-up, too, but not as much. But you could reasonably think they were two different people.

Koshcat said...

Good God! It's as if the Clintons are Zombies. Rule #2: The Double Tap.

Read the articles and they are very good. Sad that not even the democrats want her.

Koshcat said...

I don't know if this link works but, after looking at that terribly touched up photo, perhaps she is the perfect democrat.

BevfromNYC said...

Interesting. I didn't really look at the photo that carefully, but it does look like her face doesn't match the rest of the pose.

EricP said...

Falling upward, failing forward, AP. Worked brilliantly for Mr. Obama, so here we go around again ...

Anthony said...

OT but hilarious though the end is sad.

A South African man who, posing as a feminist activist, convinced the Huffington Post to publish an article calling for white males to have their voting rights removed has now lost his job after HuffPo editors tracked him down and confronted him at his workplace.

AndrewPrice said...

OT: Not to be a downer, but I think the briefing of the entire Congress at the White House on Korea means we're looking at war.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I thought both articles were excellent at making the Democratic case against her. I really can't believe they are considering her as their future in any significant capacity.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax and Bev, It is haunting. It's a very strange image somehow.

AndrewPrice said...

EP, I wish I could fail upwards. Sadly, you have to know somebody for that to happen.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, That's both hilarious and sad. I wonder what the left would be saying if this was National Review instead? Outrageous. Violation of the First Amendment. Unfair to hoax shame. Racist.

AndrewPrice said...

OT: On Trump and Korea.

I find it ridiculous that people are whining about Trump sending the Carl Vinson to Australia before going to Korea when Trump "said he had sent an armada!" Waaaaah! "He sent them in the wrong direction! He didn't act within the 24 hour news cycle and I'm bored, waaah!"

First, for those in the media who missed it -- that would be everyone -- Trump has sent two other carriers to the area... the Reagan and the Nimitz. When you do that, you don't send them one at a time. You have them meet up before they enter the combat zone. Duh.

Secondly, when Thatcher took back the Falklands, she sent a very, very slow fleet. It took weeks. Why? Because that gave things time to sort out before they got there and it gave the Brits time to do all the planning they needed and to do the diplomacy they needed.

In that regard, the Vinson has now sailed with Japanese and Australian ships in the past few days. Seen differently, they've connected with Allies who are making a similar belligerent statement to Korea.

Rather than being stupidity, this is how you do it!

tryanmax said...

RE: this is how you do it!

Liberals have a "wake me when it's over" attitude about foreign conflict. I honestly don't believe they care whether we win or lose, as long as they don't know about it until it's done and over. They'd much rather concentrate on the fight at home.

I know I've mentioned my liberal friends who in the early 2000s who were upset with W merely because Iraq dominated the news cycle. They weren't interested in the truth about WMDs and they genuinely wanted Saddam gone. They were just angry because they didn't want to hear about it.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I've long felt that liberals don't like complex issues or details. They want simple, emotional issues and it's hard to get emotional about foreigners over there... somewhere.

But if they start killing innocent people and getting ugly press, then liberals will be enraged.

Post a Comment