I have long admitted that, as an academic dweeb, I have long been confused by events after the eighteenth century. However, this story has me entirely perplexed. The University of Missouri at Kansas City has opened a women’s Hall of Fame and was looking for a female leader to open the event. Their choice among the millions of women in this country from generals to jurists to CEOs to governors to journalists to writers? Chelsea Clinton. Not only that, but the university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton to speak only ten minutes under highly abridged appearance restrictions set by her handlers (in addition to other restrictions from a brief period for photos and water specifications).
The money goes to the Clinton Foundation, though critics have charged that the Foundation has served as a surrogate campaign platform for the Clintons (with the hiring of controversial politicos like Sidney Blumenthal) and have funded luxury travel for the Clintons.
The university actually started with Chelsea as the primary goal, but initially was told that she would not do the speech. They then tried for Hillary Clinton but was told that she would cost $275,000. They then considered “other” women besides Chelsea. That list was impressive, including obvious choices like feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000). You know, women who have made huge contributions not just to their gender but to the country. And they were substantially cheaper. What did Missouri decided? Pay more to get Chelsea for a ten-minute speech to tell people about what it is to be a female leader.
For a university to engage in such low-grade celebrity shopping is a disgrace not just to this new hall and the University of Missouri but the academic as a whole. There are literally thousands of women who inspire both men and women with their lives and accomplishments. The University of Missouri reduced the history of female struggle to a cheap photo op with the daughter of a famous couple. They might as well have gone with a Kardashian and left it at that.
Mary Kay McPhee, UMKC Starr Education Committee chair, was thrilled by the choice and the opening ceremony even as many scratched their heads at the choice of Chelsea Clinton.
Of course UMKC is not alone. NBC was subject to withering criticism from journalists around the country for hiring Chelsea Clinton with a lucrative contract to do feel-good stories. The hire was criticized as something pushed by Clinton supporters inside the network; alienating real journalists, and producing dreadful television pieces.
Universities are supposed to be places of substance and intellectual honesty. While UMKC is not the first to take celebrity appeal over substance, this is not some Friday night concert or sports celebration. This is supposed to be a new university component honoring women who struggled and made real contributions to this world. UMKC reduced that moment to a ten-minute celebrity photo op.
Source: Washington Post
BFM, Even Dems will admit in private there are special rules for the Clintons, and they get away w/ it. The emails are a big deal and may be her downfall. Dems know that, they know these corrupt Clintons better tan anyone. Most HATE them. But, the Machiavellian Clintons use fear as a motivator. As I have said, and I am not being a ball buster, if I ran the Dem party I would have someone beside old man Bernie on deck. He’s 73 and would be the oldest person ever elected Prez. There are so many Republicans running because they see the primary as the general election. If the Dems go w/ Hillary, she is quite beatable.
Keeping on the Clintons, the drip, drip of the fat, lesbians emails are coming out. The WH has asserted they knew NOTHING of her private account and that has proven to be ANOTHER WH lie. Anyone keeping score on their lies?
@Nick
Perhaps someone one knows, I thought in the 1990’s there were some court cases that determined that emails are agency documents that have to be maintained for purposes like responding to FOIA requests.
That would suggest to me that if the email is created by an agency employee about agency business to a person involved with agency business then that is an agency document from the time the employee presses ‘send’ – regardless of what mail system is used.
Apparently Clinton claimed she had a privacy interest so she selected the agency emails to turn over and destroyed the remainder.
I agree she has a privacy interest. But that interest seems greatly reduced because she is the one who failed to turn over agency emails, and she is the one who co-mingled her personal and agency emails.
I think it is correct to criticize her for not immediately turning over her emails, for co-mingling the emails, for interdependently selecting which emails to turn over, and for destroying the remainder.
She seems to have covered her tracks very well. But the pattern of behavior seems to cry out that something is amiss.
And who pays for Chelsea Clinton’s Secret Service protection? Tax payers? Or deduct from $65K to cover costs?
Young Chelsea Clinton called Secret Service ‘pigs’ and told one agent ‘that’s what my mother and father call you’.
Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, whether you agree with them or not, have accomplished things in their lives. Chelsea may accomplish something in her future, but that remains to be seen. Right now, she just has politically accomplished parents.
And Annie, I’m getting your fine work for free. So I have that going for me.
This princess is reportedly a real demanding, entitled, SOS. Just like momma.
Someone actually paid $100,000. to have Sarah Palin bargle, burgle, blabber to them.
Make that $150,000. Not $200,000.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590
Someone actually paid Donald Trump $200,000. to speak to them. Idiots.
Chelsea is a leader. Depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
You would think that the Clintons. are the only people who charge speaking fees. We have an entire clown bus full of GOP candidates wherein most of them are really running for higher speaking fees, book deals and TV shows.
Does Hillary still get to pick up speaking fees while she runs for president?
She’s still running for president, right?
In many ways, the Clinton’s are being treated like a royal family in the USA. Chelsea is paid exorbitantly for nothing more than being born a Clinton, and not for anything she has actually accomplished herself.
Any monarchical thinking like that is not good for America.
When it comes to leadership, they are both equally qualified and overpaid.
Famous for being famous….should have hired that girl with the big butt,
Mom must be getting a piece of the action.
” Pay more to get Chelsea for a ten-minute speech to tell people about what it is to be a female leader.”
How would she know – I mean aside from watching her mom as she grew up?
Those who incur enormous debt to pay for school must love where their money is being spent. Or not.
If they wanted a young person to inspire other young people Malala Yousafsai would have been a much better choice. Or Nurmeen Sheikh. Or even Taylor Swift.
I suspect there was the additional hope that her appointment might curry favor with the rest of the Clinton Dynasty.