Huh? Hillary attacks Hedge Fund Mgrs

From today's New York Times article, relating how both Democratic candidates are increasing their populist rhetoric on the campaign trail:

Mrs. Clinton, speaking on the eve of the Wisconsin primary but looking forward to primaries in Ohio and Texas on March 4, issued a 12-page compendium of her economic policies that emphasizes programs aiding families stressed by high oil prices, home foreclosures, costly student loans and soaring health care premiums.

In public appearances here and in her economic booklet, she took aim at hedge fund managers, oil company profits, drug company subsidies and trade agreements that she says encourage companies to export jobs.

Umm... isn't Chelsea on leave as a hedge fund manager?

Is this an "oops, we forgot about Chelsea's choice of careers" or an "ahh fuck it, let's say it anyway" moment?

Update: From the comments I gather that Chelsea is a Hedge-Fund-Manager-Wannabe, not an actual Hedge Fund Manager.

•  Tips

  As in stock tips?  Is Chelsea giving out any freebie tips on the campaign trail?

  by rustydude on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:22:33 AM PDT

  •  i guess theyve never heard the

    old addage, "people who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones"

    by TAPayne on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:33:36 AM PDT

•  I don't think

  Chelsea's a "hedge fund manager."  I think she's something else.  Something that allows you to take extended leave to do other things, at any rate.

  by bugscuffle on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:28:57 AM PDT

  •  I didn't think she was a manager, but...

    she definitely worked for a hedge fund.  I just don't know in what role.

    by dfb1968 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:35:38 AM PDT

  •  ...

    In 2003, Clinton joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in New York City; she was the youngest person hired in her class, hired alongside those holding MBAs.

    In the fall of 2006, she left McKinsey and went to work for Avenue Capital, a hedge fund run by Marc Lasry, a loyal donor to Democratic causes generally, and heavy supporter of the Clintons.

    by TAPayne on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:41:24 AM PDT

  •  Chelsea's not a hedge fund manager

    but she does work for one (Avenue Capital).  And the hedge fund is managed by Marc Lasry, who has donated a pretty substantial amount of money to Hillary Clinton.

    by Big Tex on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:42:50 AM PDT

•  from wikipedia.org, ...

  In the fall of 2006, she left McKinsey and went to work for Avenue Capital, a hedge fund run by Marc Lasry, a loyal donor to Democratic causes generally, and heavy supporter of the Clintons.

  You're drawing a very, very fine line here...she works for a hedge fund but may not actually be a hedge fund manager herself.

  I think being a hedge fund manager requires a degree of 'clairvoyance,' or at least an ability to see the potential results of your actions...

  "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that’s extraordinary."

  by jeroly on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:35:23 AM PDT

  •  Why are we beating around the bush?

    Chelsea Clinton's value to a hedge fund has nothing whatsoever to do with her actual duties.

    by bugscuffle on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:40:44 AM PDT

•  It's like everything else.

  It's different when they do it.

  And yeah, whatever Chelsea's job title is, she's not a hedge fund manager. Ask the nearest hedge fund manager if s/he could take weeks off at a time to galavant around the country the way Chelsea does. There's a reason those jobs pay so well; you have to work hard at them.

  I really often wonder if HRC would not have been better off as a Republican. If she'd created a Maggie Thatcher or even a Liddy Dole type of profile of a sharp, conservative, no-nonsense type of woman more concerned with policy making than warm fuzzies, I suspect she would not have run into many of the problems she has. Voting for the war would be more consistent with her party's platform, sitting on the board of a union busting Wal-Mart would not have meant a thing. Since people more expect GOP'ers to be "meaner", I don't think she'd have had the same warmth/likeability issues.

  by Fmrdempolop on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:35:44 AM PDT

  •  I highly doubt that HRC was saying

    that working at a hedge fund is immoral, so this "point" (to be generous) is moot: "It's different when they do it."

    by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:12:24 AM PDT

•  Try as I might, controlling adult children

  is an impossible task. They pretend to listen to you and then go out and do exactly as they please.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:36:09 AM PDT

•  Is this the Outrage du Jour?

  I have to keep up on my primary talking points here.

  by Fabian on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:46:53 AM PDT

  •  It's not outrage

    It's just funny that Clinton is railing against hedge funds when her daughter works for one.

    You don't have to be political to find that funny.

    by prefan on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:56:32 AM PDT

    •  I don't see the humor.

      Ask kossacks who they work for.  I think you'll find quite a few of them work for corporations who are considered part of what is wrong with our nation.

      Some of us follow a Higher Calling when we choose an employer.  Some of us just follow the money.  

      by Fabian on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:04:07 AM PDT

      •  DKos-Marx-Mania

        The notion that working for a profit-making entity makes one an evil Republican lapdog of Dick Cheney.

        {Sigh}

        by Saxman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:14:07 AM PDT

        •  And the diary is how Edwards was attacked:

          'you can't be rich and criticize how policy skews toward the rich!'  Insert 'be immediate family w/ someone at a hedge fund' for 'be rich' and here's this thread.  Exact same logic at work.

          by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:17:40 AM PDT

          •  Oh, the Clintons are "well-off" sent Chelsea to..

            Stanford & Oxford. LIKE THAT'S A BAD THING? You know we have reached the DKos end days when parents sending their children to top-notch colleges is considered 'elitist'.

            BTW, none of these DKos-Marx-people object to the ill-gotten Kennedy riches. Because, after all, Teddy endorsed Obama --- (that makes it okay).

            by Saxman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:23:26 AM PDT

            •  Yep.

              This is just the "$500 haircut" applied to HRC.

              by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:25:31 AM PDT

              •  Bill Clinton and John Edwards were POOR!! -

                HRC was middle class --- They are all newly "rich" (they aren't Kennedy rich). Why is it that old money is okay, but earned income is somehow tawdry?

                I would have thought that starting from nothing and becoming a millionaire would be a good story.

                Shows you what I know...

                by Saxman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:30:21 AM PDT

            •  Cutting through the bull

              Oh, the Clintons are "well-off" sent Chelsea to
              Stanford & Oxford. LIKE THAT'S A BAD THING?

              It's not being affluent and sending your kids to upper-crust schools that's "A BAD THING."  It's your motivations in doing so that merit a subjective assessment of "good" or "bad."

              Going to school with the goal of quickly making loot upon graduation is probably something many Kossacks look upon with skepticism and deservedly so since rapid acquisition of material wealth rarely coincides with the pursuit of social justice.

              That's why many of us are impressed that Barack Obama chose NOT to become an investment banker or corporate lawyer; those are professions currently associated with impoverishing the lives of disadvantaged American workers, rather than enriching them.

              You know we have reached the DKos end days when parents sending their children to top-notch colleges is considered 'elitist'.

              It IS elitist.  There should be a word that objectively describes such schools and the mentality that venerates them.  It is "elitist."  Many paying students go there to do what Chelsea did - get on the fast track to a lucrative Wall Street job... OR to do what Barack did - gain the credentials that will qualify you for being US President some day.  Or Supreme Court Justice or U.S. District Attorney, etc., etc.  

              The adjective can be spun negatively if one wants to or it can assume a positive connotation:

              "My oldest son is a police officer who was just accepted into the SWAT team.  Less than 1/5 of the applicants can pass the training standards.  He's proud to belong to such an elite organization."

              BTW, none of these DKos-Marx-people object to the ill-gotten Kennedy riches. Because, after all, Teddy endorsed Obama --- (that makes it okay).

              I think the source of the Kennedy family's wealth is embarassing and ridiculous, but so what?  

              GO OBAMA!!

              by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:41:18 AM PDT

              •  That's......an interesting comment.

                You find wealth embarassing and ridiculous.  Ok.  Yet Obama was a well-heeled lawyer (if you don't think his community activism was in anticipation of a political career, you're just too precious for this world) and his wife a corporate attorney.  

                by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:00:40 AM PDT

                •  Bzzzzt! lol

                  You find wealth embarassing and ridiculous.  Ok.

                  Not okay.  And totally inaccurate.  Please go back and re-read what I wrote.

                  That would be helpful.

                  by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:09:35 AM PDT

              •  I sent my children to elite Universities...

                ---and I'm not sorry (even though I will be in debt for years).

                Tell me, is it lonely up on Mount Olympus? If you think the Democrats will succeed without wealthy people you are on crack. I have a news flash for you: PLENTY of wealthy people believe in social justice.

                Fortunately, people outside of DKos-world (like Howard Dean) realize that having rich Democrats is a GOOD THING.

                BTW, "Elite" is positive. "Elitist" is pejorative.

                by Saxman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:11:01 AM PDT

      •  Lighten up

        It's kind of funny. Not a laff riot, but it's amusing. A little ribbing won't hurt Hillary a bit.  

        by bumblebums on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:18:07 AM PDT

      •  You missed the point.

        There is nothing wrong with working for a hedge fund.

        There is nothing wrong with working for an oil company or any other big corporation.

        There is something wrong with:

        1. Not working at those places even though you have the job title and salary and spending your time campaigning for your mom.

        2. There is something wrong with railing against hedge fund managers when you've gotten your daughter a job with one.

        3. There is something wrong with being a hypocrite. Working for big oil company? Fine. Working for big oil company while saying big oil sucks and makes profits off the little people? Not Fine.

        by Fmrdempolop on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:20:51 AM PDT

        •  HRC has said that hedge funds suck?

          She's railed against hedge fund managers?  And to think that all along I thought she was proposing changes to the tax code so that hedge fund managers would pay OI rates.

          Not that I don't believe you or anything, but I'd love  a quote to this hell-raising populism.  

          by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:24:15 AM PDT

    •  Yuckety-yuck-yuck.

      Yeah, it's a laugh riot: "remember the one about Clinton taxing carried interest at ordinary income rates....."

      Oh, mercy.  Good times.

      by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:06:34 AM PDT

•  What difference would it make if she were?

  Are you saying that HRC's policies are determined by the interests of her immediate family?  Rather than just beating around the bush and alleging total corruption, why not just come out and say it?

  by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:05:23 AM PDT

•  this merits a whole diary??

  I work for a drug company, though I do rail against the evil practices of most pharma companies. THis diarist is an idiot.

  by akr nyc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:11:12 AM PDT

  •  The standards for "a whole diary" are pretty low

    And unless you haven't been paying attention, those standards are a whole lot lower than what I put forth here.

    I read an article, noted an interesting coincidence, cited a passage, linked the article, and came to a joking conclusion.  Not exactly "War and Peace" but a cut above many of the diaries that get posted here daily.

    So you think I'm an idiot.  Oh well.

    by rustydude on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:00:26 AM PDT

•  Umm, so what?

  John Edwards was heavily involved in the hedge fund industry as well. That doesn't necessarily mean anything.

  Believe it or not, a lot of people in the finance industry actually care about society. A person can make a boatload of money at a hedge fund and still personally think that closing the various tax loopholes involved is a good idea, among other things.

  by dennisl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:30:27 AM PDT

  •  Glass houses anyone?

    This is just really amusing that there is more stone throwing coming from the Clinton camp.

    I mean remember their biggest attack on Obama is over a land deal. A land deal that may appear shady, but where Obama will not be charged and won't be found do have done anything wrong.

    Umm, WHITEWATER anyone? Before you say BUT THE CLINTONS WERE NEVER CHARGED, Obama will never be charged for anything on any of the Rezko stuff. But what do the Clintons care. All their talk about the vast right wing conspiracy, but they're still happy to do the exact same thing when it suits them.

    by PhillyJeff on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:38:56 AM PDT

    •  Now that's integrity.

      "But they do it!"  Where's all this "new politics" I've been hearing about?  Maybe we should dispatch the WMD-finders to look for those, although I suspect they'll have more of the same luck.

      by burrow owl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:03:07 AM PDT

      •  Seriously.

        This whole land-deal attack is stupid. This whole hedge fund attack is stupid, too. In fact, the hedge fund attack is stupider simply because Hillary isn't the one working at the hedge fund!

        Either way, the fact that another stupid person exists doesn't make you (not you personally) any less stupid.

        I think the only thing I have left to say to these nutjobs is "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." I don't exactly know how it's relevant, but it feels like it should be.

        by dennisl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:02:20 AM PDT