If the Clintons were to move back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the first daughter, Chelsea, would presumably take on the traditional responsibilities of the first lady, an expert on the White House tells Daily Mail Online.
'There is a social function to the first lady's role, and that will not go away,' C-SPAN co-CEO Susan Swain said. 'Diplomacy' is conducted through social settings, 'and it is important to have somebody in that role.'
Several first daughters have filled the role of hostess in place of their mothers throughout American history, Swain, the producer of C-SPAN's acclaimed series on America's first ladies and the author of a book on the same subject, said, noting that there is precedent for such an arrangement.
'The best guesstimate with the Clintons is that Chelsea Clinton would take over that role,' Swain said.
Scroll down for video
If the Clintons were to move back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the first daughter, Chelsea, would presumably take on the traditional responsibilities of the first lady, an expert on the White House tells Daily Mail Online. Chelsea is pictured here with her mother on Sunday, Mother's Day
If Chelsea were to manage the East Wing in a Hillary Clinton White House, it would clear her father Bill's plate to take on a policy role in the new administration or continue working with his non-profit. It's not clear how Chelsea would manage her own household in New York with husband Marc Mezvinsky as well as her adopted one in Washington, D.C. if she were to play White House hostess, though
Former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea are pictured here at a Clinton Global Initiative event earlier this month. Chelsea is currently a principle at the Clinton Foundation along with her father
Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea on 9 day visit to Kenya
The last White House to have a hostess who was not the wife of the president was exactly a century ago during the tenure of Woodrow Wilson.
After Wilson's first wife, Ellen, died a year and a half into his presidency, their daughter, Margaret Woodrow Wilson, formally took on the role of first lady at age 28 for more than a year until the president remarried in 1915.
The only daughter of Benjamin Harrison, Mary McKee, also became the face of the East Wing after her mother Caroline died. She was 34 when she assumed the role, which she held until the end of her father's time as the nation's chief executive.
Likewise, Martha Jefferson Randolph's mother, also named Martha, had already passed away when her father, Thomas Jefferson, was elected to serve in the Oval Office. That left the 28-year-old daughter of the nation's third president to manage the East Wing.
In other instances, daughters-in-laws, sisters and even a niece fulfilled the duties of the first lady when the position was otherwise vacant.
A recluse who didn't want her husband to win his bid for the White House, Margaret 'Peggy' Taylor shunned the role of hostess and instead bestowed it on her daughter, Mary Elizabeth 'Betty' Bliss.
Bill Clinton started jogging near his home in Chappaqua.
But on each run he happened to jog past a hooker standing on the same street corner, day after day. With some apprehension he would brace himself as he approached her for what was most certainly to follow. "One Hundred and Fifty dollars!" she would cry out from the curb. "No, Five dollars!" fired back Clinton.
This ritual between Bill and the hooker continued for days.
He'd run by and she'd yell, "One Hundred and Fifty dollars!" And he'd yell back, "Five dollars!"
One day however, Hillary decided that she wanted to accompany her husband on his jog! As the jogging couple neared the problematic street corner, Bill realized the "pro" would bark her $150 offer and Hillary would wonder what he'd really been doing on all his past outings.
He realized he should have a darn good explanation for the former Secretary of State. As they jogged into the turn that would take them past the corner, Bill became even more apprehensive than usual. Sure enough, there was the hooker!
Bill tried to avoid the prostitute's eyes as she watched the pair jog past.
Then, from the sidewalk, the hooker yelled... "See what you get for five bucks!?"
I don't care who you are, this is funny!
The happiest people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.
Education does not guarantee intelligence.
Prepare for the worst and you won't be disappointed.
MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) – Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.
The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.
“These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”
More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”
While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. “The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified,” Logsdon said.
While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. “Our research is very preliminary, but it’s possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen,” he said.
__________________ Perhaps the greater hubris of man is that we can keep the status quo of Earth's environment, not that we can change it.
Have you clicked on the Google banner today? C'mon...you know you want to.
I'm not just a Fishermen, I'm the fishin magician!
^^^Unauthorized signature edit by grumpy old men.
Those are the only two conclusions one can reasonably come to after reviewing Hillary Clinton?s stunning Sunday interview on local New Hampshire TV.
When WMUR local TV host Josh McElveen asked Hillary Clinton why her State Department greenlit the transfer of 20 percent of all US uranium to the Russian government, Clinton claimed she had no involvement in her own State Department?s decision to approve the sale of Uranium One to Russia.
'I was not personally involved because that wasn?t something the secretary of state did,? said Clinton.
The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium ? the stuff used to build nuclear weapons ? to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?s time and attention'
Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary?s statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.
First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary?s family foundation, including Clinton Foundation mega donor and
Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million.
Since 2005, Giustra and Bill Clinton have frequently globetrotted together, and there?s even a Clinton Foundation initiative named the Clinton-Giustra initiative.
But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge that a man who made a nine-figure donation to her foundation was deeply involved in the deal? Nor eight other mining executives, all of whom also donated to her foundation?
Second, during her Sunday interview, Clinton was asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech delivered in Moscow. Hillary?s response? She dodged the question completely and instead offered this blurry evasion.
?The timing doesn?t work,? said Clinton. ?It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state.?
Hillary added that such ?allegations? are being ?made by people who are wielding the partisan axe.?
The reason Hillary ignored addressing the $500,000 direct payment from the Kremlin-backed bank to her husband is because that payment occurred, as the Times confirms, ?shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.?
And as for her comment that the timing of the uranium investors? donations ?doesn?t work? as a damning revelation, in fact, the timing works perfectly.
As Clinton Cash revealed and others have confirmed, Uranium One?s then-chief Ian Telfer made donations totaling $2.35 million that Hillary Clinton?s foundation kept hidden. Telfer?s donations occurred as Hillary?s State Department was considering the Uranium One deal.
Third, Clinton correctly notes in the interview that ?there were nine government agencies who had to sign off on that deal.? What she leaves out, of course, is that her State Department was one of them, and the only agency whose chief received $145 million in donations from shareholders in the deal.
Does she honestly expect Americans to believe she was simply unaware that the deal was even under consideration in her own State Department?
Moreover, is that really the leadership statement she wants front and center heading into a presidential campaign? That in the critical moment of global leadership, with the Russians poised to seize 20 percent of US uranium, she was simply out to lunch?
Perhaps a review of her e-mails would settle the accuracy of her Sunday claim. But of course she erased her e-mails and wiped clean the secret server housed inside her Chappaqua home.
To be sure, like those e-mails, Hillary Clinton wishes questions about her role in the transfer of US uranium to the Russian government would simply vanish.
But that?s unlikely. A recent polling memo by the Republican National Committee finds that the uranium-transfer issue is ?the most persuasive message tested? and one that ?severely undercuts her perceived strength of resume.?
Hillary?s Sunday comments only served to elevate and amplify the need for serious answers to axial questions.
In the absence of such answers, Americans are left to believe only one of two potentialities regarding her involvement in the transfer of 20 percent of US uranium to Vladimir Putin: She was either dangerously incompetent or remains deeply dishonest.
Location: living near the least productive waters of the NE
Re: The Clinton Thread
Just confirms my view of Universities: absolute immoral morons running an asylum.
I keep wondering how we can dismantle University bloat, similar to the dismantling of the Army Corp of Engineers, who both seem to leave a wake of distruction in their paths.
There is so much strange financial dealings with our local universities, I'm suspicious of funny money bordering on fraud, which keeps up these charades of "education". This article is just another example of sheer insanity
When the University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity speaker to headline its gala luncheon marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame, one name came to mind: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But when the former secretary of state’s representatives quoted a fee of $275,000, officials at the public university balked. “Yikes!” one e-mailed another.
So the school turned to the next best option: her daughter, Chelsea.
The university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton’s brief appearance Feb. 24, 2014, a demonstration of the celebrity appeal and marketability that the former and possibly second-time first daughter employs on behalf of her mother’s presidential campaign and family’s global charitable empire.
More than 500 pages of e-mails, contracts and other internal documents obtained by The Washington Post from the university under Missouri public record laws detail the school’s long courtship of the Clintons.
Chelsea Clinton, second from left, appears with her parents and husband, Marc Mezvinsky, at mother Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign kick-off rally June 13 in New York City. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
They also show the meticulous efforts by Chelsea Clinton’s image-makers to exert tight control over the visit, ranging from close editing of marketing materials and the introductory remarks of a high school student to limits on the amount of time she spent on campus.
The schedule she negotiated called for her to speak for 10 minutes, participate in a 20-minute, moderated question-and-answer session and spend a half-hour posing for pictures with VIPs offstage.
As with Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches at universities, Chelsea Clinton made no personal income from the appearance, her spokesman said, and directed her fee to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
“Chelsea is grateful to have the opportunity to speak at events like this while also supporting the work of the Clinton Foundation,” said the spokesman, Kamyl Bazbaz. He said she was happy to “celebrate the legacy of women in their community.”
Reuters/Reuters - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Virginia Democratic Party's annual Jefferson-Jackson party fundraising dinner at George Mason University in Fairfax, …more
By Jonathan Allen and Alistair Bell
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton struggled to fit into the government of President Barack Obama after being appointed Secretary of State in 2009, according to emails released by the State Department on Tuesday.
Its really to bad the majority of voters don't choose on honesty, qualifications and track record of accomplishments for the people who are their bosses.
No, lets elect someone because of their race or gender. They think It would be cool....
then you get groups, which I'm sure Hilary loves, who back the lesser known who will save the world and it takes away votes from some one qualified to lead and .......well you know.
Joe welcome to the new minority you would be very surprised how many hard working American's don't register or vote .
Can you please list a few of the politicians that would fit the above criteria ? if you have to go to the way back machine , please take your time.
Well, there are a couple past I did really like but, not sure any are fully honest,,,,,, so no, I can't. But, not being "completely" honest or "semi honest" may have to be added to my above qualifications.