A few months ago, Chelsea Clinton started doing “Making a Difference” segments on NBC, and some critics felt she made no difference at all.
On her debut, The Washington Post dubbed Chelsea “one of the most boring people of her era,” which was kind of harsh, though they weren’t alone in feeling her tube-escence was a gigantic nonevent.
Well, this piece details some of the other hard feelings against Chelsea as she leaps into TV prominence without a whole lot of experience.
Says the article:
*Her agent shopped her to various networks and acted like they were doing them a favor! At least one network felt like they were being auditioned, not Chelsea.
*She made demands like “Only good news, and no politics.”
*When she got hired, she got special treatment like car transportation and a welcoming bag, the kind of stuff that burns up coworkers who didn’t happen to come from a famous family.
But the article’s main point is that until Chelsea opens up about stuff like how she felt about Monica-gate, we won’t feel like we know her, and she’ll remain an aloof, ineffectual presence.
I don’t necessarily agree.
I mean, do we really need to hear her shriek “I was mortified” before we can trust her?