Hillary Clinton's potential campaign themes could be compromised by her family's activities.
Chelsea Clinton, left, and Shabana Basij-Rasikh, managing director for the School of Leadership in Afghanistan in take part in a discussion on empowering women during the Clinton Global Initiative at Washington University Saturday, April 6, 2013, in St. Louis.
By all accounts, the 2016 presidential election is Hillary Clinton’s to lose.
It should be. After all, it is arguable whether there has ever been a more qualified candidate in terms of experience, since she has served in the Senate, the Cabinet and the White House — for two terms, no less — albeit in a slightly different capacity than commander in chief.
(Disclosure: I once interned for Clinton’s Senate campaign.) While conservatives try desperately to stop her seemingly unstoppable momentum by making Benghazi a permanent, tragic albatross around her neck, there is one more obstacle to her White House hopes emerging:
Chelsea Clinton appears to have inherited the brains of both of her parents, earning impressive degrees from Stanford and Oxford. But she inherited from them something even more valuable: her last name. Increasingly, she appears to be using it to open lucrative doors that would be unlikely to open were she not the daughter of a past president and possible future one.
As reported by various outlets, the younger Clinton recently became cochair of an institute at New York University, where she has already been serving as a vice provost. In addition, she has a lucrative role on the board of directors for IAC/InterActiveCorp, along with being a “special correspondent” for NBC News — all of this by the ripe young age of 33.
There has been extensive media coverage of Chelsea’s high-profile gigs, including tough criticism of her debut as a journalist, as well as of her reported multimillion-dollar real-estate purchases.
So why does Chelsea Clinton’s increasingly heightened public profile matter to her mother’s rumored campaign? Well, it’s hard to make a campaign issue out of class inequality, America being rigged to benefit the wealthy, when your family is now benefiting so audaciously from said rigging and, worse, seems oblivious to how crass it looks.
While Democrats have spent much of the last three presidential election cycles ridiculing Republican nominees as poster children for nepotism, it’s looking likely that the next Democratic nominee’s family will be able to give the Romneys and Bushes a run for their money.
Despite Secretary Clinton’s qualifications, the image that she and her family present is increasingly a troubling one for anyone who believes that America truly is about equal opportunity for all. Though no one would question that Hillary Clinton’s and her husband’s early successes are the product of hard work, today it is impossible to look at their family and not see first and foremost a former president opening White House doors for his wife, and both of them opening up as many doors to power for their daughter.
Listening to Secretary Clinton discuss the class divide, the struggles of millennials saddled by student-loan debt or the unemployment rates of young black Americans will barely pass the laugh test on a campaign trail when it is clear that she and the former president are operating from the George H.W. Bush school of parenting.
The Clintons may not have helped their daughter buy a baseball team, but someone bought her a $10 million apartment, and someone’s connections have gotten her jobs that don’t seem to fall within the purview of her expertise or qualifications.
Does all of this make Hillary Clinton unfit for the presidency? No. But it may make it tough for her to pass herself off as a relatable progressive candidate, or for her to paint her Republican opponent as out of touch, as the Obama campaign did so effectively against Romney.
It is arguable that the issue of nepotism has already cost Clinton one presidential election. Then-candidate Obama was seen by many as what Hillary Clinton’s husband once was: a self-made man. This stood in contrast with someone who seemed to be campaigning on the strength of her spouse’s record and connections.
There are certainly well-known wealthy families who have succeeded as progressives despite their bank accounts. The Kennedys come to mind.
But despite the Kennedys’ youthful foibles and missteps, one constant that has defined the family throughout generations — from Robert Kennedy to Caroline Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy, Joseph Kennedy III and many others — is a rigorous, lifetime commitment to progressive causes focused on lifting others not born into families like theirs.
Perhaps Chelsea Clinton could take note. It might help her mother’s campaign.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.