Now that All of the Hillary Supporters Have Left . . .

. . . can we talk about Chelsea and her hedge fund job? I've wracked my brain trying to understand this one. Her father's an ex-President (Democratic) and now heads a global foundation. Her mother's a sitting United States Senator from the State of New York. She twenty-seven years old. She went to Stanford and Oxford. She does not need any money. She could literally write her own ticket to do anything on the planet that she wants. The United Nations. Philanthropy. Politics. Anything.

And she decides to become an analyst for a Wall Street hedge fund? Avenue Capital Group. From their website: "Avenue Capital Group is a global investment firm focusing on the preservation and growth of capital."

I'm poor and I wouldn't take that job. Why in the hell would she? I hate to say it, but to me is says something about the parents.

UPDATE (RESPONSE TO COMMENTS):

1. Chelsea is fair game because she's campaigning for her mother. If she doesn't want to be a part of the political process, she doesn't have to be.

2. I do think that what somebody chooses to do for a living says something about their character as a person. Let's be real, Barack would not be in the position that he is today if he did not have a long resume of "good works", i.e. community organizer, civil rights lawyer, etc.

3. Yes, I do believe that hedge funds are basically somewhere between worthless and evil. What do they contribute to our economy and our society? To allow rich people to buy instruments protecting them from the consequences of bad investment decisions?

4. Yes, there are some good, progressive people working on Wall Street. I know a few of them, actually. But what they do on a daily basis is not good or progressive.

5. My point is not just that Chelsea is like the other people who work on Wall Street. My point is that she has better alternative options than 99% of them. That is what perplexes me so much about her choice.

•  Tips for Good Works

  by pragprogress on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:04:20 AM PDT

  •  Donut for using Chelsea

    to attack her mother. That's all this is.

    by Bob Love on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:26:04 AM PDT

    •  Agreed and joining in the HR'ing.

      by Larry Bailey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:09:46 AM PDT

  •  Don't listen to your detractors

    Don't listen to your detractors. Have the Bush twins been spared anything for their general rotteness? No, then Chelsea, who has spent a lot more time campaigning for her mother than the twins did for Dubya, including Chelsea wining and dining superdelegates, is not above criticism for her selfish career choices. Hey, she wants to be a banker? So be it. Can you imagine the Kennedys making that kind of choice? No? Me neither. The Clintons remain DLC to the core, right down to their daughter. She says a lot about her parents, little of it good. A rich kid decided to go get richer while not trying to help her rich and powerful mother ascend to her throne. And we're not supposed to comment? I don't think so.

    by Brian Bell on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:39:39 AM PDT

    •  The Kennedys?

      Seriously, you're going to compare their antics to Chelseas?

      by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:45:51 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, what's the problem?

        Let's look at that family. Joe Jr., gave his life serving his country. JFK, died in office, probably the first American victim of the fascism which has overtaken this country. Bobby, Bobby, so much promise, again, assassinated trying to save this country from itself. Teddy, Teddy has had his problems, obviously, but he hasn't spent his days trying to personally enrich himself. He has spent his life in the Senate trying to improve our world. The later generation? "Jon Jon" may have been a People poster boy, and he didn't go into politics, but he did attempt to add a good magazine to our national, political discourse, and he lost millions doing it. His sister, Carolyn, she spends her days defending your rights through the ACLU and your rights to privacy on Internet and beyond, her other charitable work is basically the only work she does. Robert Jr? He's busy suing polluters and trying to clean up the water in New York. Patrick Kennedy, Teddy's son? U.S. Rep for Rhode Island.

        Yeah, I'll stack the Kennedys' record for family achievement and good works up against Hillary's and Bill's offspring, or the Bush's, or any political family really. Warts and all, the Kennedys record of service to this country outweighs all the tabloid bull.

        Meanwhile, Chelsea works for a hedge fund. All that opportunity, and she chooses to be a banker and hatchet woman for her mom. Nice. Hey, it's her life, but don't expect me to applaud her choices.

        by Brian Bell on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:05:13 AM PDT

        •  I thought we were talking about the children

          Not the Kennedy elders.

          You really left out a lot of the bad parts.

          by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:11:09 AM PDT

          •  The Kennedy elder...

            The Kennedy elder is Joe; Joe Jr., JFK, Bobby and Ted are the children; Jon Jon, Carolyn, Patrick, etc., the grandchildren.

            by Brian Bell on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM PDT

•  That's what capitalists do.

  Capitalists don't dedicate their lives to philanthropy.

  They dedicate their lives to accumulating wealth.

  by Rex Manning on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:08:10 AM PDT

•  You know...

  This is a Democratic site.

  It's not ok to just trash democrats or especially Chelsea, who has done nothing wrong.

  by ek hornbeck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:09:34 AM PDT

  •  Where did Chelsea...

    ...get "trashed"?

    by Rex Manning on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:11:44 AM PDT

    •   

      "I wouldn't take that job. Why in the hell would she? I hate to say it, but to me is says something about the parents."

      What?

      What is she doing except supporting her mother?

      by ek hornbeck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:15:41 AM PDT

      •  Her mother loaned her campaign $5,000,000....

        It hardly looks like she needs support.

        by humphrey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:18:46 AM PDT

        •  So what?

          Are you so inflamed with Hillary hate that you have to attack her daughter?

          Fie on you.

          by ek hornbeck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:20:15 AM PDT

        •  clue: there's more to support than $$

          love and encouragement comes to mind along with some youth votes.

          you might want to adjust your blinders.

          by nycstray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:23:05 AM PDT

        •  This Is Why the Dems Defeat Themselves

          Her mother loaned her campaign $5,000,000....

          In what godforsaken universe is this somehow an indictment of character?

          We must empower each other -- and build and use our resources to claim this nation for the people as a whole.

          Or, we surely do not deserve control.

          Because instead, our values then tell us we must be subjucated.

          (Actually, I do fear that is the case.)

          by Pluto on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:46:28 AM PDT

          •  I have always wondered why so many

            Democrats feel that in order to be real Democrats you have to be poor??

            Where the heck did tht come from - doesn't it make sense to make some money so you can help your fellow man?

            Being poor just for the sake of being poor - makes no sense at all

            by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:49:48 AM PDT

            •  I Try to Do Something Here...

              ...and on other blogs everyday to convey that message.

              I don't know how that terrible destructive meme got started in this generous party. Perhaps it is some form of guilt.

              If we don't get over it, we will lose not only this election, but the future.

              by Pluto on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:53:04 AM PDT

              •  Also corporations are not all bad

                as described here so many times.

                Many corporations that are very supportive of their workers and give a lot of money to Democratic causes - and to humanitarian efforts.

                So you find those corporations and support them - and shun those that do not.

                by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:59:17 AM PDT

                •  Indeed...

                  We really just need to look at the corporations that Eisenhower warned us about. Those with the power to control vital resources and the lives of citizens through selective rationing and privatized killing power.

                  The military industrial contractors.

                  Otherwise, corporations are a good organizational system for a nation. (And excellent investment for its citizens.)

                  by Pluto on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:05:31 AM PDT

                  •  Yes - we have seen the results

                    big time - from Cheney - because with him the military industrial complex has been given a free reign

                    Oh God - i cannot wait to get them out of the White House -- and get all levels of government cleaned out - and cleaned up.

                    by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:09:02 AM PDT

      •  The sins of the mother

        are being visited on the daughter. If mom is a munster, the daughter must be a munster-in-waiting. Ipso facto, or something similarly latin like oingo-boingo.  

        by Bob Love on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:19:37 AM PDT

    •  Also the Title-

      "Now that All of the Hillary Supporters Have Left . . . "

      Deliberately meant to incite and inflame.

      by ek hornbeck on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:17:40 AM PDT

      •  but of course - the title is wrong too

        as is everything else !!

        Sorry to disappoint you - my dear - but I am still here - so all the Hillary supporters have NOT left!!

        Dailykos - has not - as yet - become Pravda, so opposing views are still allowed, right??

        by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:24:11 AM PDT

        •  Show me your papers, now!

          Just as I thought.  You are not allowed to post during business hours, so you will have to wait for the site to close to post.  I'll let you go this time, but don't do it again.  :)

          by dkmich on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:54:48 AM PDT

          •  Dang - you caught me again

            I just want to know however - what kind of business happens at this hour - 1:30am??

            just asking ... :)

            by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:35:49 AM PDT

        •  How's the "strike" going? n/t

          by alizard on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:15:58 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    Chelsea isn't a great surrogate for her mother (having seen her in-person), and I was particularly offended by her 'clairvoyant' remark that she made in Wisconsin last month.

    Her political remarks are fair game. Her private-sector job, though, really isn't our business.

    by PsiFighter37 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:27:27 AM PDT

    •  i mean, unless you think no one should work for

      hedge funds, like I do.  or at least no one competent.  All really smart gifted privileged people should devote their lives to public service, and leave the propping up of the corporate state, making money for rich people to the less talented.  they don't deserve the gifts that these folks have.  

      but, chelsea is no worse than most of my friends, so this is really more of an academic argument.

      by DoGooderLawyer on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:10:35 AM PDT

•  it is very telling

  that with all the things Chelsea could have chosen to do, she chose to do this. Telling and disturbing if you ask me.

  by egmacrae on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:12:41 AM PDT

  •  How anybody can work

    anywhere in the for-profit sector is beyond me.  Improving a corporations bottom line has never been a motivator to me.

    by dkmich on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:56:28 AM PDT

    •  this is snark, right?

      "how anybode can work anywhere in the for-profit sector is beyond me...."

      please tell me this is snark....

      by ImeldaBlahnik on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:48:57 AM PDT

    •  Most Democrats do work

      in the for-profit sector. How nice to be so pure.

      by Bob Love on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:27:48 PM PDT

•  I don't think she's under any special obligation

  to choose a life of public service.

  Business training could also prepare one for a life in public service.

  by poblano on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:13:12 AM PDT

  •  Obviously she did not follow Barrack's path! NT

    by humphrey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:14:48 AM PDT

    •  WTF does that even mean? n/t

      by Trix on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:20:01 AM PDT

      •  Community service ...............

        I guess money is more important!

        by humphrey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:22:52 AM PDT

        •  And what do you do for a living? n/t

          by Trix on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:23:30 AM PDT

          •  WTF is it to you?

            by humphrey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:24:29 AM PDT

            •  Likely the same as your slam on Chelseys job

              n/t

              by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:25:42 AM PDT

            •  Well...

              unless you work full time in a soup kitchen, or something like that, I don't see where you get off criticizing Chelsea.

              by Trix on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:27:15 AM PDT

        •  i guess his wife should quite her $$$$ job. n/t

          by nycstray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:24:15 AM PDT

        •  Barack has a $2 million dollar house.

          Uh, he should have given his money away and lived modestly down the street from me!

          by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM PDT

  •  She probly wants nothing to do with politics

    Shes helping her mom now, but maybe shes not into being a pol herself. Why else would a daughter of a former Democrat President go work for a hedge fund? I agree its not solely for the buckets of money, but who knows what her motivation was. Maybe she just really likes that kind of work.

    by Unseen majority on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:23:35 AM PDT

    •  she has said she has no desire to be a pol.

      do ya blame her? ;)

      by nycstray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM PDT

      •  Not at all

        Did she really say that?

        Its a totally understandable position after the things shes seen.

        by Unseen majority on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:29:37 AM PDT

        •  just recently at one of the campus stops

          might have been a week or so ago. but i'm sure she's been asked a lot on the campaign. it makes sense. she really seems like mostly a private person. and in NY, seems like most politician's kids go to law school and then follow the path. which she hasn't.

          by nycstray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM PDT

•  Is there any here here?

  Her father is head of more than one philanthropic group. Maybe she's learning about how economics works so she can tap it for philanthropic purposes.

  Or maybe she wants to pend it all on clothes. Who knows? You don't. You're grasping at straws.

  by Bob Love on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:16:07 AM PDT

  •  You don't learn "how economics works"

    by working for a hedge fund.  The diarist's position (made clear by the remark that "I'm poor and yet I would not do it") is that working for a hedge fund is a particularly objectionable profession for someone who cares about how economics works, or about how the world works.   If she were a lawyer or a psychologist or a porn star or a writer or a software engineer she'd be making an honest living. As an analyst for a hedge fund she isn't.

     That's the diarist's view, and I don't think the criticism is unfair.

    by codairem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:42:54 AM PDT

    •  For better or worse, we live in a hedge fund

      world.

      The option is to drop out of it entirely. It's possible.

      But I teach for the state of New York. If Chelsea increases the profit of her hedge fund, then that means some of that profit will go to my salary and the support of the school system here.

      Weird world, but that's how it seems to work.

      by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:05:48 AM PDT

      •  Wish it were so.

        If Chelsea increases the profit of her hedge fund, then that means some of that profit will go to my salary and the support of the school system here.

        Alas, non sequitur.  First, if she increases the profit of her hedge fund, it doesn't necessarily mean more money in NY's treasury, since it appears to be a private hedge fund, not one owned by the state of New York.  (Perhaps the state benefits through taxes, but it would benefit more if real wealth were being generated.)

        Second, even if New York state has more money, it doesn't mean the school system has more money.  See, New York is not at all a poor state.  Like most states (certainly California, where I live), if it doesn't put enough money into education, it's not for lack of money but because of perverse priorities.  This isn't likely to change while the best and brightest minds go work for hedge funds.

        by codairem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:26:24 AM PDT

        •  New York State's taxes are enormously tied

          to profits from Wall Street, and schools eat up a vast majority of that budget pie.

          It's easily the biggest public school per pupil tax state in the nation.

          Spitzer, before his downfall, was in the midst of raising funding for education even in the midst of a huge budget crunch because of Wall Street's woes.

          Wall Street basically funds New York state.

          by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:40:33 AM PDT

          •  thanks for the clarification

            if things are as bad as you suggest it must be particularly tough to separate public interest from moneyed interests in NY state.  I continue to think that the proliferation of hedge funds, and the decoupling of risk from wealth-producing endeavors, is not in the public interest, except perhaps in an utopian regulatory environment that would prevent  high volatility from translating into public losses.  As things have been for the last 25 years (remember the savings and loans?), huge profits accrue to investors and especially to fund managers when things are good, but when the bubble bursts it's the taxpayer that foots the bill.

            by codairem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:56:41 AM PDT

•  I don't really have a problem with it...

  Sure, if she got the job solely because she is a Clinton, then I'd have an issue with it. But aside from that, who cares? I'm going to be working on Wall Street starting later this year; does that make me a bad person?

  by PsiFighter37 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:16:30 AM PDT

  •  It means your parents must be

    somehow defective, according to the logic of this diary.

    by Bob Love on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:24:24 AM PDT

  •  while you're not a bad person

    don't underestimate the morality value of working on Wall St.  whether you think so or not, you're participating and advancing the mechanism whereas rich people become richer, and you're not really helping the world at all with your job (though you've obviously done some nice advocacy for your candidate on this site, and i'm sure changed some minds).  

    if you have the capacity to work on Wall St., then surely you also have the capacity to do something more helpful with yourself as well.

    by DoGooderLawyer on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:13:23 AM PDT

    •  But that's exactly the mindset that leaves

      Wall Street to the greedheads.

      It's BECAUSE they have so many moral deficients working there that the system is so warped.

      I know because I know liberal Democrats that work there and think there aren't enough like-minded people working alongside them.

      Warren Buffet is a huge progressive in that atmosphere.

      If only there were many more Buffets, then things would have changed already.

      by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:48:32 AM PDT

      •  ok, i'll bite

        how exactly does having more liberals on Wall St. making more money help.  I'm not familiar with Buffet's theories.  How do they actively change the whole concept of what's going on there, and make sure that much more of the money is going to support social change, as opposed to lining the pockets of corporate CEO's, shareholders, and those who work on Wall St.?  

        I say this not as confrontationally as it sounds, convince me.

        by DoGooderLawyer on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM PDT

        •  What you spoke of are Warren Buffet's theories

          The richest man on Wall Street is highly critical of CEO pay and the flim-flam of trading.

          But he's someone who is very rare when it comes to Wall Street.

          He takes minimal salary for his position, lives in a modest house, invests in value stocks which are fundamentally sound, and his vast wealth which is tied up in corporate stock will be given to charity.

          Lastly, in his company, he promises that both his salary and that of all his executives will not rise above the ratio of his lowest paid worker.

          He's rare.

          If there were more liberals like him on Wall Street, you wouldn't have such a thing as golden parachutes.

          by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:51:47 AM PDT

          •  i like these ideas

            but it can't be a couple liberals talking about this, if you're serious, there needs to be a movement of liberal Buffet-loving financial professionals that have the will to change this incredibly entrenched system.  I look forward to strategizing how to create it.

            otherwise, as a liberal on Wall St., you're just mouthing Buffetian platitudes while sipping at the trough of what you're fighting against.

            thanks, you should post some diaries on this, and how we can reform Wall St. from the inside.

            by DoGooderLawyer on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:06:08 PM PDT

            •  I'm not on Wall Street

              I have just been around Wall Street types.

              I had to keep my mouth shut so as not to get my brother in trouble once.

              by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:52:02 PM PDT

              •  I don't think Warren Buffet even lives

                or spends much time on Wall Street. I thought he lived out in Nebraska or something.

                by pragprogress on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:09:33 PM PDT

  •  Ward Churchill might perhaps say that it makes

    ... you a kind of little Adolf Eichmann. That seems to be the ultimate endpoint of the diarist's logic.

    by lotlizard on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:38:43 AM PDT

    •  The irony of all of this

      is that the original phrase "little Eichmann" does apply to a vast majority of the American populace at this point, when you look at Iraq.

      I'm not referring to Churchill's use of it.

      by upstate NY on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:50:04 AM PDT

      •  After 5 years, the occupation of Iraq seems banal

        ... to the populace, and the MSM make sure it's presented that way.

        Most of us Americans have a hard time understanding that something so banal can still be profoundly evil.

        by lotlizard on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:25:23 AM PDT

  •  Maybe

    I'm going to be working on Wall Street starting later this year; does that make me a bad person?

    For the 99% of us with relatively limited career options and a genuine need to earn enough money to provide for ourselves and our families, no I don't think "working on Wall Street" automatically makes you a bad person.

    My diary is more directed to Chelsea in particular because of her unique position in the world. There are so many other things that she could be doing; it doesn't have to philanthropy, per se, but one would think that for no other reason than just a desire for an interesting life/job, someone in her position would choose another path. Working on a Wall Street hedge fund is what you suffer through in order to make enough money to enjoy life either after work and/or after you retire.

    by pragprogress on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:35:24 AM PDT

•  hope Hillary doesn't

  try to get you banned from dkos like she did Schuster.

  by allie123 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM PDT

•  Some of us still check in from time to time

  And this is actually a lot better than the "She should be in Iraq right now getting shot at" stuff I've seen in the past.

  So I'll consider this a step in the right direction.

  by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:18:25 AM PDT

•  #1, all the Clinton supporters have not left,

  and quite a few of them are still hanging about, commenting, and writing diaries.

  #2, do you make a habit of criticizing the lives of politicians' children, or did you make an exception just for the Clintons?

  #3, why do you assume that she's taking this job "instead" of philanthropy, rather than "in addition to" (since she apparently can walk and chew gum at the same time)?

  #4, could you just delete this?  I don't see what purpose it serves except to lower the discussion another notch.

  by pico on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:18:25 AM PDT

  •  Why should the diarist delete this?

    No one has the right to express an opinion regarding Chelsea? I agree with the other writer who said maybe all you Clintonistas should have the diarist "suspended" like Hillary did to David Schuster.

    by olive and black on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:25:43 AM PDT

    •  Clintonista?

      You can read my comment history if you want to back that up, but it's much easier (and lazier) to assume.  So my point about this lowering the level of discussion another notch?  You just gave a good example of it.

      The diarist should delete this because 1. it accomplishes nothing, 2. it's intended to inflame, and 3. it lowers the level of dialogue even more.  

      Who said the diarist doesn't have the right to express an opinion?  See, you keep running with the assumptions.  The diarist has the right to an opinion, and I have a right to an opinion (that the diary sucks), and you have a right to an opinion, and everyone's happy.

      by pico on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:28:37 AM PDT

      •  A poster or diarist who uses "clintonista"

        or "obamaniac" or the like immediately loses credibility, imo. Those are just two of the terms I wish would disappear from the lexicon.

        Peace.

        by not a cent on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:34:06 AM PDT

        •  When Bernie Sanders first ran for congress

          His supporters proudly called themselves Sandernistas.

          I love it.

          by VelvetElvis on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:47:29 AM PDT

    •  Clintonista?

      Freeper names on a dem site?  Has it really gotten to that point?

      by leftynyc on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:21:03 AM PDT

•  she could also take that experience

  and use it for good down the road. who knows what her plans and passions are.

  also, you might want to take a look at some of the folks involved in Clinton's Global Initiative and what types of commitments they've made and how much money they are backing their commitments with.

  by nycstray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:18:49 AM PDT

  •  OK, let's

    This is about Nursultan Nazarbayev, the brutal and corrupt dictator of Kazakhstan and friend of politicians in high places, including three current and past U.S. presidents, Dick Cheney, presidential candidates from both parties, and heads of state everywhere.
    . . .
    Traveling with billionaire uranium miner Frank Giustra, Bill Clinton greets Nazarbayev in Almaty in September 2005. On September 25 this year, the Clinton Global Initiative began an exclusive meeting in New York with "featured attendee," Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev.

    BTW, I contacted the "Initiative" to see if and when they'd be offering alternative energy research funding grants, etc. The response was 'not in the foreseeable future'.

    by alizard on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:24:25 AM PDT

    •  typical.

      buffet, gates, and others that attend the yearly forum and make commitments etc? naw, lets just find smear material. listen, they still can't get this story to grow legs, but keep on trying, maybe you'll get lucky.

      guess all the work he was doing this weekend is just worthless BS. i really don't know why he bothers. he should just take his toys and go home.

      by nycstray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:32:25 AM PDT

      •  that Bill Clinton's giving legitimacy to

        a vicious dictator doesn't bother you is as much a comment on Hillary supporters as needs to be made.

        The concept that anything is OK as long as our Fearless Leaders do it is a part of the wingnut GOP belief system that has no business in the Democratic Party.

        Hillary and Bill are not my Fearless Leaders, and your need for them says something ugly about you.

        by alizard on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM PDT

•  I'm still here...

  :-p

  by Trix on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:18:59 AM PDT

  •  Trix!

    If all the Clinton supporters where as good-natured and funny as you, we really would be in a sad state after this 'strike'.

    by Unseen majority on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:34:45 AM PDT

    •  And if all the Obama supporters supported Clinton

      ;-)

      by Trix on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:03:38 AM PDT

      •  Cthulhu would rise from the depths?

        well, you asked.

        by alizard on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:29:30 AM PDT

•  So tell me - what do you do?

  What job do you have?

  by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:19:07 AM PDT

  •  It's really none of our business,

    just like whatever Chelsea does.

    by Bob Love on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:21:49 AM PDT

    •  so there is one set of rules for Chelsea

      but you can just skate??

      by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:39:15 AM PDT

    •  Well....

      I dont think that you could say that everything she is doing is our business, but i could definately see something she is involved in having a bearing on the election or Mrs Clinton's presidency.

      What i disagree with is the kind of jumping to conclusions that this diarist presents. Like she must be doing something aweful enough for us to be concerned about.

      As far as i know there is absolutely no basis for that kind of claim. Sure, she didnt choose to be Mother Theresa, but who said she had to?

      by Unseen majority on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:40:32 AM PDT

  •  I'm a Legal Aid Attorney

    Working for peanuts providing free legal services to those who could not otherwise afford it. Still paying my student loans back, twelve years out of school. Maybe I'm just jealous of Chelsea because I have to struggle to try to do good works in the world; she wouldn't have to.

    by pragprogress on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:38:56 AM PDT

    •  How do you know what

      she does with her money?  For all you know, she gives most of it away.

      by leftynyc on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:22:30 AM PDT

      •  Wouldn't change my opinion much

        I don't think it's all that productive to spend the majority of your waking hours causing damage to this world, and then through a few dollars toward a nonprofit to make yourself feel better about it.

        But I'm less concerned about the relative "do-gooder"-ness of her job, than just the straight why would she work in a nasty, stress-filled, greed-dominated environment like a Wall Street hedge fund when she could be doing anything she wants?

        by pragprogress on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:07:09 PM PDT

•  ...what

  See, this is why I'm sad the Clinton supporters left. Homogeneity of opinion breeds dumb.

  by Jaiwithani on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:20:16 AM PDT

  •  Have no fear -- I am still here

    n/t

    by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:35:10 AM PDT

    •  Thank you

      Don't strike. We need people here to disagree with the majority. I don't want a blog full of people agreeing with me.

      by Jaiwithani on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM PDT

•  I So Totally Don't Get This

  My mission is to help Democrats get wealthy so they can fight for this nation on a level playing field -- with the Plutocrats.

  Is Chelsea dirty because she knows about money?

  by Pluto on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:25:02 AM PDT

  •  I have no problem with money

    I make money - I spend money - I give money away to pols

    It is a marvelous thing!!

    by sara seattle on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:31:10 AM PDT

•  You know what--

  I don't care what she does.  She's not running, and it's none of my business, and for all I know she gives 85% of what she makes to the deserving poor.  

  Also, I don't know that it would be better if she were just living off of Mom and Dad. She probably could if she wanted to.

  Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with making money and I wish I'd figured this out earlier, instead of writing a book about how Shakespeare made money, which did not make me any money.

  by Egghead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:29:02 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm... Hedgies vs. Hoes

    Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with making money....

    Does that apply to from-the-wrong-side-of-the-tracks escort girls who service wealthy, Democratic governors too?  ;o)

    lol  Just curious in a genuine way, Egghead; I have absolutely no idea where you stand on the issue.

    by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:42:18 AM PDT

    •  Hmm--

      honestly, I'm all over the place on this issue.  I've actually danced burlesque for fun; it could be very liberating (and really poorly compensated.) Members of C.O.Y.O.T.E. (call off your old tired ethics) are pretty vocal about their choice to work in this industry.

      That said, based on the people I've met, the ones who have worked real clubs like Spearmint Rhino or perform in porno or work as an escort--they seem tired, run down and scared.  True story:  two days before my wedding, the best man showed up with his girlfriend, who looked awfully young and yet terribly old. I was about 24 myself.  She giggled and drank diet Coke and prattled about how when she got married she wanted all pink at her wedding, and yet she had multiple hundred dollar hair extensions.  I couldn't make this out, this young/old teenager, but later I found out that she was an escort and my fiance's friend was her "economic advisor."

      when we returned home, we tried to contact the Florida State police but they had too much to do.

      I'd be all in favor of working girl making some money if they didn't have pimps and drug habits unti they are too sick and old.

      by Egghead on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:46:46 AM PDT

•  regarding Chelsea and her career:

  

  by Libertaria on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:35:08 AM PDT

•  Couldn't Care Less

  It's none of my business what Chelsea's current career is.  Maybe she wants some economic/financial experience before doing something else.  Maybe she wants some financial security (earned on her own) and then she plans on becoming a sculptor, or a rodeo clown, or a writer.  Don't know, don't care, don't judge.

  by Aquaman on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:40:57 AM PDT

  •  The devils are in the details....

    What if she's analyzing or organizing investments in a Chinese auto-parts conglomerate whose factories are staffed by Tibetan concentration-camp inmates?

    Not too complimentary to Democratic values, right?

    by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:47:40 AM PDT

    •  On working for the NSA (from "Good Will Hunting")

      INTERVIEWER: Why not work for the NSA?
      WILL (Matt Damon):

      Why shouldn't I work for the NSA? That's a tough one. But I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the NSA, and somebody puts a code on my desk, something no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cuz I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East, and once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hiding. Fifteen hundred people that I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are saying, "Oh, send in the marines to secure the area", 'cuz they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, getting shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cuz they were pulling a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there taking shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cuz he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're taking their sweet time bringing the oil back, of course, maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, it ain't too long till he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is giving him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starving 'cuz every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're serving is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holding out for something better. I figure: fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected President.

      by lotlizard on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:47:23 AM PDT

•  I would love to work at a hedge fund

  and not necessarily for the money.  I dig finance and economics and that is where you get to test your theories.  Being wrong has big consequences, but you do not know until you try.  

  I got no problem with this for a bright young person striking out in the world.  Hell Edwards was in with one.  

  by hdaman on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:45:11 AM PDT

•  Vote Clinton...

  

  by bythesea on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:46:53 AM PDT

  •  Word!

    by Dr Funkenstein on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:00:55 AM PDT

•  Yuck

  Is Chelsea running for president?  Is Hillary running for World's Best Mother?

  I fail to see how Chelsea Clinton's career choices are relevant to anything.

  by KilljoyAZ on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:47:01 AM PDT

•  Grasping at straws

  . . . can we talk about Chelsea and her hedge fund job? I've wracked my brain trying to understand this one.

  perhaps you could understand it easily if you had the capacity to be an analyst for a Wall Street hedge fund

  by cioxx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:00:52 AM PDT

  •  Give it a rest

    I went to Stanford too, I'm sure I could've gotten a job at a hedge fund if that's what I wanted to do.

    by pragprogress on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:41:52 AM PDT

•  Every day

  has to have a stupid diary of the day.  Usually the day doesn't start with one, but I'll have to nominate this one.

  by Grannus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:18:14 AM PDT

•  Chelsea Clinton's job

  is her own business. Jeepers, people!

  by kpardue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:53:32 AM PDT

  •  But she's a .......

    CLINTON!!!! Therefore evul. so, evul, that she must be the reason that the Street is imploding. </snark>

    by theRoaringGirl on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:21:14 AM PDT

•  oh dear....

  Look, I think if Chelsea was doing something unethical or illegal, we may have a right to know.  Some of us may think working for the for-profit sector, or hedge funds, is not the most service-oriented way to make a living, but it's neither of the above so far as I'm concerned.

  We ARE still Democrats aren't we?  Do we not give to each other the right to decide for ourselves how we feel about certain issues?  I wouldn't dream of grilling Chelsea about why she chose this field - she could have all kinds of reasons I would find compelling - future career plans, student loans weighing her down, or simply an interest in the field.  Or maybe she just wants to earn a great income later, who knows.  It really is not my business.  

  And btw - even some of us in more traditional public service type jobs get paid well - and I refuse to feel guilty about that.  It gives me the ability to put my kids through college without swamping them with debt, and also allows me to put a lot of time and money into causes that mean a lot to me, whether it's politics, or AIDS orphans in places I live.  What I make is a whole heck of a lot less relevent in assessing my character or liberal principles than what I choose to do with what I earn.

  While I'm being defensive, ;), let me also say, I think this place suffers from oversimplification and stereotypes.  I get a wee bit tired of the diaries that post the latest conspiracy theory about various IFIs or aid organizations' plots to take over the world, for instance.  Not that I think that they are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and seeing them work for myself in the countries where I work, I can offer plenty of criticisms.  But turning them into the Great Satan, or the very many good-hearted people who work for them into neo-colonialist thieves, hardly helps figure out practically speaking how to be more effective in helping the billions of people living on less than $2 per day.  For some reason this diatribe on hedge funds reminded me of that...sorry to be off topic.

  by American in Kathmandu on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:08:27 AM PDT

•  it must suck to have 2 over-achievers for 'rents

  that's all I got to add .

  by dantrotheplanetman on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:16:04 AM PDT

•  Are you kidding me?

  I hope you're not in too much pain from the stretching you had to do to come up with this.  

  by BarbinMD on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:16:25 AM PDT