Why Do the Clintons Have a Podcast?

Why do they call their podcast Why Am I Telling You This?

Is it to help you form a mental picture of Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea striving mightily to suppress their exasperation at the ignorati even as they can't stop wagging their fingers at us? Or perhaps they think that since the title of their show is in the form of a question, they can avoid sounding like the scolding know-it-alls they are.  

For example, if they'd called their podcast something like "Don't Make Me Have to Tell You This Again!" or "If I've Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times!" then people might get the idea that the Clintons are annoying and infantalizing, and we won't tune in.

In the first episode, about how a gourmet chef is helping the Clinton Foundation to "build back the Caribbean better!" there's an audio montage of Bill cogently explaining why, exactly, he has to tell you this:

Now why am I telling you this? Because it is your future on the line. Why am I telling you this? Why am I telling you this? We can do this. Why am I telling you this tonight? Not to take you down but to keep you looking up. Why am I telling you this?

O.K.,  now that it's all been made clear that unless we heed Clinton telling us that our lives are on the line unless we heed what Clinton is telling us, let's now listen to Chelsea telling us that "our" children are Too Small To Fail. 

To divert attention from the fact that five or six major banks have been deemed too big to fail (or jail) because Clinton-era deregulation gave them control of the entire financialized global economy, Chelsea wants to tell you her spin. Her solution to the banks foreclosing on subprime predator loans and evicting millions of families from their homes, while the .01% sucked up all the wealth, is for those families to spend more time talking to and reading to their children.

For some reason, the Clintons have for decades been laboring under the delusion that poor mothers are neglectful mothers who don't already talk to, sing to and read to their kids. As a result, they need experts like Chelsea to tell them how to be good parents. Chelsea tells you this in her podcast so as to avoid telling you about that time, back in the 90s, when her Dad "ended welfare as we know it" by ending direct cash aid to the poor and sending mainly black mothers out to low-wage jobs without the child-care subsidies that they'd originally been promised.

Since poor children don't do as well in school as better-off children because, among other hardships, their mothers often have to work two or more minimum wage jobs and aren't allowed to stay home and nurture them as much as they might like, Chelsea's solution is not to resume direct cash aid to mothers, nor for the government to build decent affordable guaranteed housing stock for them. Her solution is to stock neighborhood laundromats with books so that the mothers can be freed up to scrounge for quarters and fold clothes.

I mean, if there is no decent affordable housing in these "at-risk" neighborhoods Chelsea is so concerned about, you can't really expect the Clintons to call for a washer and dryer in every non-existent apartment, can you? That sounds too much like Herbert Hoover crazily promising a chicken in every pot during the Great Depression. Because hardly anybody had a pot.

Although study after study has established that a child's brain can be irreparably harmed if she misses even a few meals, and that a growing number of US households have been deemed chronically "food-insecure," Chelsea Clinton is also not calling for an increase in the average meager SNAP (food stamp) stipend. She is convinced that just a few donated books in a noisy laundromat will help these hungry children to thrive and maybe even grow up to cure cancer:

Hi, I’m Chelsea. Welcome to Why Am I Telling You This?

Right now we’re wasting a huge amount of potential in our country. Who knows what diseases we haven’t cured or discoveries we haven’t made because we’re not giving every child an equal chance at success in life, and so I’m so passionate about this issue because, particularly now, as a parent I know that every parent wants to do the best that we can for our kids every day of their lives. I want to do everything that I can to ensure that every parent, grandparent, caregiver, adult in the lives of young children have every possible opportunity to surround those kids both with love but also with words.
Why am I telling you this? Because we owe it to our children to solve this.

To display what a diversity champion she is, Chelsea Clinton tells you that parents don't necessarily even have to read to their kids in English. And if they happen to be illiterate themselves, they can still talk to or sing to their children, even pray with their children. She cogently tells you:

And it helps build your child’s brain, and it helps build your child’s … Ultimately, their executive function and everything that we know is critical to success just in life.

I think she might have been about to say "build a child's house with a roof on it"  before she caught herself just in time. She tells you that conversing with your offspring is not an end in itself or that it even fills a basic human emotional need in itself. You talk to your kids with their future careers and monetary earnings in mind, and you ignore the miserable here-and-now of your own life. I can just picture Chelsea envisioning "our" children as a long marching line of automatons in suits carrying identical briefcases, their foreheads literally bulging with all that brain function. Only a die-hard neoliberal can speak of a child's well-being in terms of a business-like "executive function."

The Clinton Foundation has partnered with New York University, which conducted an actual laundromat study in order to efficiently measure the Too Small To Fail initiative, because if stuff can't be measured and calibrated, then what good is it? As the project's director, Patti Miller, explains to the podcast audience:

Actually, at 30 times the amount of literacy activities took place in these laundromats compared to control laundromats that didn’t have these playful learning spaces there. Then we actually thought, “Okay. What happens if you bring a librarian into these spaces?” And found, again, a tremendous increase in child-directed literacy activities. That kids were engaging with librarians for an average of 47 minutes a time, which is a huge amount of time, particularly for a very young child.

She doesn't explain why the librarians aren't working in actual libraries. Maybe it's because there are fewer and fewer public libraries in poor neighborhoods, and that the hours of the surviving libraries and the jobs of librarians have been drastically cut because of the budget austerity measures brought about by Clinton-style policies.

And speaking of neoliberal efficiencies:

Patti Miller:
Now we’re going to be able to observe a story time with our special guest reader, Chelsea.
Chelsea Clinton:
Oh, what a busy day we’ve had my busy family, reading, talking, singing too. We love to do all three. The end.

We must read to "our" children, yes, but we must never, ever waste our words or use too many words at any one time. Stories are not just stories for fun, they are jobs to be ticked off on every responsible parent's to-do list. Could Chelsea have made it any clearer with her rushed rendering of relentless busy-ness?

And since nothing happens in America without capitalism stretching its  tentacles into every human living space and into every human brain, the possibilities for profiting from the poor are endless. An offshoot of Too Small To Fail, explains reading specialist Ralph Smith, is a program called "Respite Time." Since Homo economicus is expected to multi-task even during precious leisure time, participating parents' verbal interactions with children are creepily monitored as they listen to the radio or watch TV.... or who knows, even while they listen to the Clintons telling them why they have to tell them this.

Smith says:

Too Small To Fail, in this amazing partnership with Univision, has figured out how to take the respite time and make it productive time in terms of parenting. That, it feels to me, is something quite special and I think that the communities across the country are going to resonate with the opportunities of Too Small To Fail their self. I’m excited. I’m intrigued and excited by that.

Um... not to sound picky or anything, but why do I tell you that the poor grammar used by a literacy expert, of all people, suggests that he could use some remedial time in the laundry room hisself?

The Clinton podcasts are produced by At Will Media, which in its own turn tells you:

Founded in 2015 by CEO Will Malnati, At Will Media is a full-service media company based in Manhattan and Los Angeles. With over 50 years of combined experience, At Will Media sets the pace for the podcast industry as a partner for branded content and a hub for successful and critically acclaimed originals. From podcasts to custom Amazon Alexa Skills, At Will Media powers and produces shows for high-profile clients such as GQ, Morgan Stanley, Town & Country, WeWork, Viacom, 1 Hotels, and more.  The firm notably went on to produce the first daily audio product by L’Oréal and Hearst Beauty for Amazon’s Alexa. 2019 saw AWM receive a nomination in the category of “Best Branded Podcast” at the iHeartRadio Podcast Awards for The Atlantic Magazine’s podcast The Future According to Now, Season 2.  At Will Media' executive team is headed by entrepreneur Will Malnati, Glee actress and Emmy/Tony-award winner Jenna Ushkowitz, former Twitter exec Julie Martin and Audible alum Mitch Bluestein.

With Jeff Bezos's ubiquitous spy robot Alexa at least tangentially involved in the Too Small To Fail initiative, the possibilities for profiting off the already-plundered and oppressed poor are not only endless, they're stratospherically eternal. How many words do parents speak to their children while glued to their two-way screens? How much is their data worth to these voracious companies? Why do I even have to tell you this? 

Will Malnati, the heir of a restaurant dynasty, has probably never set foot in a coin-operated laundromat. He doesn't look like the sort of chap who'd even do his own laundry in a private home.

Chelsea Clinton, to her own credit, did visit a Chicago laundromat earlier this year to read to a group of children who'd been especially bused in from a nursery for the photo-op occasion. They learned, among other things, that "H" stands for Hillary, and as such, it is one of Chelsea's favorite letters in the alphabet. The end.

Isn't It Rich: Trump, Madonna, and Chelsea Clinton

Despite his best efforts, Donald Trump is not quite the shoo-in for best performance by a rich, famous, entitled and clueless narcissist this week.

The internet is exploding because Madonna made her VMA show tribute to the late Aretha Franklin all about herself and her own struggles to achieve fame and fortune. She is now known as Me-donna, which is quite a big step up from Material Girl. She's made Trump's own accolade to Aretha -- "She worked for me on numerous occasions " -- look almost magnaminous.

But sorry, Don and Me-Don, because neither of you has anything on Chelsea Clinton. Unlike both of you, she at least brings a little class to the narcissistic table.

Then again, she didn't have the Queen of Soul to compete with her, because the sole topic of the day was the Clinton family and her book sales. 

Persistently still plugging "She Persisted" in Scotland, the daughter of Bill and Hill was asked, yet again, if she will ever run for office. Definitely maybe someday, but definitely not right this very minute was the nuanced Clintonoid reply.

Chelsea classily explained:

"While I disagree with the president … I think my family ... is being really well represented. But if that were to change, if my city councillor were to retire, if my congresswoman were to retire, my senators, and I thought that I could make a positive impact, then I think I would really have to ask my answer to that question."

This is honesty as only the clueless rich can convey it. As long as her family is being well-served by her politicians, she is content, because their needs are being met thank you veddy much. She disagrees with Trump on almost everything - she abhors his presidency - but she is not about to complain about the tax breaks he has gifted to her. The needs, wants and interests of the less-fortunate people of her voting district(s) do not enter into her thought processes at all. They are invisible to her, and unlike your typical phony populist,  she doesn't have the capacity to even pretend to see them, let alone care about them.

She will run for office only if she can make a positive contribution to her family fortunes. Once The Help retire, she might be forced to serve herself for lack of any more family retainers.  At least it sounds that way. To be fair, though, she does at least pay lip service to her own class, admitting that "I feel incredibly protective of Barron Trump" before generously reminding everybody that he has been "bullied for his appearance."

I mean, was anybody even thinking that Barron has a problem with how he looks before Chelsea insinuated that there is something not quite right about the kid? As she readily admits, her feelings of protection toward the youngest Trump son are simply not credible.

Sadly, Chelsea Clinton's wealth and expensive education haven't even made her discourse as erudite as she pretends. "If... I thought I could make a positive impact, then I would really have to ask my answer to that question" is either crafty Clinton doublespeak, or an indication of some seriously muddled thinking.

But as Mother Hillary once wisely asked her answer, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" 

Plus, you can always blame the narcissism of rich people on genetics. Hillary and Madonna are tenth cousins, having shared the same great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother. 

They're all one great big happy self-satisfied family.

Madonna and Hillary

Madonna and Chelsea

Although Chelsea and Ivanka Trump used to be besties, they're not speaking to each other these days. And sadly, Chelsea hasn't expressed the same indignant concern for lesser sister Tiffany Trump, who suffered the ignominy of having to avoid Madonna during a recent high-fashion event in New York and even required extra Secret Service protection as a result. That's because Madonna had also made the first Women's March against Trump all about Madonna, and threatened to blow up the White House.

That's another way the rich are different from you and me. They're never held accountable, because enough of us are enjoying this show way too much to even care. Either that, or we're too numb or jaded to care.

  It's what happens when the Spectacle replaces participatory democracy.

So I hope that maybe definitely someday, Chelsea will find herself forced to protect her own interests when, let's say, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez decides to run for the ignominiously retiring Chuck Schumer's Senate Seat on a socialist platform. Now, that would be spectacle to participate in with gusto and vengeance.

Hellbent Persistence: The Chelsea Clinton Story

Second in annoyance only to Donald Trump's Tweets are the persistent stories about how Chelsea Clinton is being "groomed" for public office. Every time I read one of these ubiquitous pieces, I can't help but wonder: who, exactly, is doing all this mysterious grooming?

Mom? Dad? The DNC? MSNBC? The Hamilton Project? The Center for American Progress? The articles never say, exactly. So I have no choice but to let my imagination run wild.

What immediately comes to mind, totally unbidden of course, are the libertines of De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom. These depraved characters have the persistent habit of assaulting, in a variety of ways, the young people whom they've kidnapped and imprisoned in a remote luxury resort castle. The violations commence only after a very rigorous grooming regimen in which the victims are transformed into compliant and trusting objects who never exhibit even a whimper of protest, let alone display any emotions or original thoughts. The grooming has a profound deadening effect upon them.

That De Sade's predators hailed from the highest echelons of the church, the nobility, and academia would prove all too realistically prescient. But that's a blog post for another day.  

So anyway, once I manage to get those horrid sadistic images out of my head, the next thing that occurs to me is what an insult it is to use the word "grooming" about an already hyper-educated and impeccably put together woman like Chelsea Clinton. How much more grooming can one living picture of perfection even stand?

The publicists planting all these stories about her solo debut on the public stage are, I assume, getting paid top dollar by Clinton World. So isn't it a bit degrading to keep using this "being groomed" trope about Chelsea, as though she were a dog or a horse? Not only is the phrase demeaning, it robs her of her own agency. It implies that she needs lots and lots of expert help to maintain her position in life. And we all know that Chelsea only got where she is today by virtue of her own grit, talent and persistence.

She's even written a new book about these unique qualities, directly plagiarizing channeling Elizabeth Warren's recent tirade against racist Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions before his confirmation. After obeying Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's order to stop persisting and shut up, Warren had bravely continued her speech outside the Senate Chamber, via Facebook. She persisted in reciting a letter written by Coretta Scott King and as a result, her feminist brand skyrocketed to new levels, most notably within the elite Pussy Hat Brigade. Chelsea has recently become a branded soldier of The Movement herself. This is evidenced by her recent spate of #ResistanceInc tweets directed at Donald Trump and her publicizing of her toddler daughter's debutante stint:

 Notice that Chelsea didn't quite get to the level of "no drones, no bombs, no wars."

Chelsea's mom even got into the act, tweeting about Warren, the woman she'd only recently spurned as a running mate: "She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless she persisted. So must we all."

And thus was a whole Persisterhood industry spawned. What - you thought this was democratic socialism? There are She Persisted energy bars, and She Persisted fashions, and even a She Persisted online store with products designed for the "woman warriors in your life." If you are a persistentrepreneur looking for product placement, there are experts to help you market your stuff. They will even send you a monthly inspirational story to help you get marching all the way to the bank.

A Movement Can't Go Ka-Ching If It Ain't Got No Bling

So what better time for Chelsea Clinton to rush out another book, and call it (surprise) She Persisted?

Given that she's probably only had a few weeks to cobble this tome together, with little to no time for original academic research or multiple revisions or relentless editing, Chelsea's publishers are marketing it direct-to-children - or what she adorably calls "tiny feminists, mini activists and little kids who are ready to take on the world."

Expose the nursery school set to neoliberal Clintonism while they're still too young to resist. Groom them early, groom them often. 

According to the helpful plug planted in the New York Times:

The book will share the stories of 13 historical women who relentlessly pursued their goals in the face of opposition, including Harriet Tubman, Nellie Bly, Maria Tallchief and Oprah Winfrey.

Now hold it right there, and I'm not talking about the gratuitous addition of billionaire Oprah Winfrey. I'm talking about the need of Chelsea's publicist for a copy editor of her own. These women are historic, not historical. The word historical applies to all women and to all the humans and events of the past. They existed, therefore they were. Historic, on the other hand, correctly connotes that these people were unique or highly influential in their fields. Plus, since Oprah is not even dead yet, it is highly insulting to call her historical.

  So somebody needs a little grammar-grooming here, no? And puh-leeze -- shouldn't these lucky 13 ladies be termed Herstoric? If it can't be politically correct, then what hysterical good is it?

If you think this is too cute by half already, wait a minute, because we're not done yet. According to the Times puff piece, you'll have to hold your breath until She Persisted reaches bookstores on May 30 for "a cameo that is yet to be announced." 

I'm not exactly sure, but I think that what Chelsea teasingly means is a bonus chapter featuring one of the most relentlessly persistent people around. You'll have to buy the ticket before the big reveal, though; did you really think she'd be giving this book away? Hah! It'll set you back $17.99 for all 32 pages of it.

Anybody want to take a wild, wild guess as to the identity of Secret Cameo? Hint: her own last book was titled Stronger Together. Published in September last year, its first week sales were so awful, it should have set off an immediate persistent cacophony of alarm bells.

In a truly democratic country, the political life of this Mystery Cameo person  would be considered historical - as in The Blessed Past. But now that she is reportedly being groomed to become the next mayor of the Income Inequality Capital of the World, I think we can safely say that it when it comes to this family, the chutzpah alone is of truly historic and earth-shattering proportions. It's been consequential, to say the least.

It's Surreal: The Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dali