jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (6 posts)

Chelsea Clinton indicated that she probably will enter political office in the f

  1. gmwilliams profile image87
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    Chelsea Clinton indicated that she probably will enter political office in the future.  Do YOU

    believe that Ms. Clinton has the prerequisite qualifications to president or whatever political office she chooses to be?

    Chelsea Clinton is one prodigiously intelligent woman. She has both undergraduate and graduate degrees from prestigious universities. She is currently studying for a doctorate in the health sciences. She is passionate about health and the environment.  She was always interested in helping others.  Frankly, there is NO other way of helping others than to enter the political sphere and to do it large scale. 


  2. CraftytotheCore profile image84
    CraftytotheCoreposted 4 years ago

    I think any political candidate should be elected based on their own experience, education, and will to do what's right for the people. 

    I think Chelsea has demonstrated fine leadership skills on her own after dealing with the personal issues during the Clinton administration.  I don't know how many other people could have stayed so composed and forth going.

    What I don't think is a good way to vote someone in to office is to vote them in simply because they are a daughter or son to a prior president.  Look at the Bush family for example. 

    Like here in town, we have a town official who was voted in simply because her husband is in politics.  I don't think there ever was a worse person in her position.  She was voted simply because her husband is popular.  That's not right.  There were other experienced and educated people that ran for that office and were snubbed over.  Now everyone regrets their decision because they realized they mistakenly thought this person was as capable as her political husband, never basing any merit on her own experience or education.

    1. gmwilliams profile image87
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Chelsea was raised NOT to rely upon her parents' lineage nor accomplishments.She was imbued with a strong work ethic. She was taught to rely upon her own, individual accomplishments.

    2. CraftytotheCore profile image84
      CraftytotheCoreposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, that's what I mean.  Chelsea should be regarded for her individual education, strengths, and political pursuits, not voted for just because someone liked Bill!  I think that would be insulting to her.

  3. LandmarkWealth profile image81
    LandmarkWealthposted 4 years ago

    Chelsea, will run on her name. Nothing more.  That's because she will enter the political sphere with no actual experience having every done anything of any substance outside of academia.  Unfortunately, academia is one large bubble of people who have little to no understanding of how the real world works, and how people actually behave and interact with each other.   Most of us who have been educated (and I use that term lightly) at the college level will remember that the adjunct professors where typically the ones you could learn the most from.  They could give you insight into what happens outside of a textbook, and help you actually prepare for the field of your choice.  One of my colleagues taught adjunct at St Johns University.  He would repeatedly make me laugh with the stories of how full time professors would engage him about what happens at work during the day, because they real had no idea.  The vast majority of what I ever learned that was relevant in my field was on the job training

    The point is that Chelsea's qualifications are next to nothing.  However, that wouldn't make her much different from most of the other characters in the D.C. area, who typically have done literally nothing before running for office.   D.C is full of lawyers who in many cases ran for office almost right out of law school having never even practiced law. 

    In terms of helping people.  I think it is quite na├»ve to believe that anywhere near even a small minority of the people in the political sphere are interested in helping anyone but their own power base.  We sometimes align to support an elected official because they are advocating a policy we believe in.  But he/she usually advocates it because they want our vote.  There are very few altruistic politicians.  And the few that do exist, don't stay that way once they get a taste of the power that corrupts them quite quickly.   If they were truly altruistic they'd be dedicating their lives to charitable organizations without the fan fare of publicity that always accompanies their good deeds and garners them public attention.  I once worked for a client who gave away 10 of millions to a charitable trust for cancer research. Nearly her entire net worth that she accumulated over a lifetime.  The university offered to name the wing after her. She declined and told me that she didn't donate the money to get her name on a wall. She was truly interested in helping people.  Someone like that doesn't run for office.

  4. profile image0
    JThomp42posted 4 years ago

    Agree totally with Landmark. She will run on her name and her name only.