When Was Chelsey Clinton Born

It is hard to say a lot about her as a child as with all modern first children of school age (Caroline&John Kennedy, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and Malia&Sasha Obama) their parents work hard to make sure that they have privacy, however we do know a little. She was born while her father was governor so her birth was on the front page of the local paper. In Arkansas she was VERY involved in sports and activities playing softball and soccer, dancing ballet, and many other things. She was an avid reader and she skipped the third grade. In junior high (before moving to DC) she attended the Horace Mann Junior High, a magnet school for arts and science. Many have said that this was because of her parents, they always expected her to learn and similar to the Kennedy’s (Joe and Rose) they often engaged in very mature discussions about policy and the world with their young daughter. Chelsea has talked about how they would often have debates around the breakfast table where they would take turns playing daddy (Bill) and his opponents (they ran for governor every two years so he was almost always in a campaign.) once they moved to Washington D.C. she began attending Sidwell Friends and dancing at the Washington School of Ballet. She was a National Merit Finalist and participated in the Model UN. She was particularly interested in history, math, and science. She attended a weekly youth group at the Foundry United Methodist Church. In 1995 she went with her mother on a trip to South Asia and everyone said she seemed exceptionally eloquent and intelligent. In a recent podcast she said that she didn't get her first B until college. In summary she was a near perfect child who excelled in school and ballet.

I’ve noticed as well. The Billster, aided by corporatist dems like Schumer and Pelosi, would love to put up Chelsea for elective office. Apparently he’s also been clearing the way for her by dumping money into primary races where the contenders are a bit too ‘progressive’ for his liking. In ‘Shattered’, a just-published overview of Hillary’s disastrous campaign, Bill went after all Democrats who hadn’t been sufficiently enthusiastic about Clinton in 2008 (rated ‘the sevens because their loyalty to Hillary wasn’t a 1 through 6): “Bill Clinton since 2008 had "campaigned against some of the sevens" to "help knock them out of office," apparently to purify the Dem ranks heading into 2016”. I’m sure that Bill will still have enough status as a DNC rainmaker to continue this behavior on his Daughter’s behalf for a 2020 run.Seriously, if the Dems put Chelsea up in 2020, it’s curtains. Among my progressive, pro-Bernie Millennial friends, Chelsea is an Ivanka who was born into the D hierarchy. All those folks reduced to trash jobs and living in the parents’ basement by the ongoing recession have special enmity for people who’ve never had to survive a hostile job interview and were handed six-figure salaries.

Anything can be a gift, or a burden, depending on how one wants to take it. This is true of being born a Kennedy, a Romney, or a Rockefeller. But it's also true of being born "blonde," or "attractive," or to a particular race or culture. It all depends on how you look at it--and how you respond to the assumptions, stereotypes, and associations that being so born will naturally arouse.Being born a Clinton certainly has its advantages, to be sure. It means being born into an upper class family--both socially and economically--with all the privileges and opportunities associated with it. But it also means that before people even meet you, they will have a set of preconceptions, ingrained notions, and opinions about both you and your family, the second they see your name on the page. And for some people, this can be a terrible burden.Imagine the pressure Chelsea Clinton must've been under, growing up? As the Clintons' only child, anything she said or did as a child or as an adult could negatively impact her family's career and legacy--including doing nothing. The same youthful indiscretions many people might enjoy or take for granted--slipping out of the house to meet a boy, staying out late to go to a party with alcohol, skipping school, sneaking into a movie, or a concert, or a bar with a fake ID--would've been difficult if not impossible with a 24-hour Secret Service security detail. And even if she could have done it, imagine the guilt she might've felt if something were to happen that jeopardized her parents' career?When people talk of "legacies" and "family dynasties," whether they know it or not, they are putting incredible pressure on the youngest generation in that family to conform with a certain set of behaviors and expectations. Some people may grow to resent this pressure and rebel against these expectations. Some might even crack under the pressure, and dissolve into neurotic, self-destructive emotional wrecks. But some will flourish, and take the mantle of "Clinton"--or "Rockefeller," or "Kennedy," or "Whatever-McNobody, of the South Hampton McNobody's"--and make their own mark on the world and society.In short, being a Clinton is a blessing--if you want it to be one.

I know what you're saying but at the same time I find the underlying assumption of the question pretty offensive. I didn't like the Kennedy family being considered "American royalty" and I have no patience for anyone who wants to award the same to members of the Bush or Clinton family.  I much prefer someone whose earned it on their own.  That's the American way.  I think the Kennedy fascination was mostly a Washington Post-Ben Bradlee-Sally Quinn fixation.  Any Kennedy could get on the front page of the Post during Bradlee's time as Post editor merely for crossing the street.  And so many Democrats who were permanent DC cocktail party circuit goers also had the fixation so it lasted for a long time, very strongly in the media since so many liberal Kennedyites jumped back and forth between politics and journalism (also pretty offensive, but that's another point).  Frank Mankiewicz is a good example, as Bobby Kennedy's press secretary during his campaign and later head of NPR.  I found it more than revealing that so many in the Democratic Party readily accept this type of sense of someone having it owed to them due to birth, while the Republicans were quickest to reject Jeb simply because he was a Bush.  I think it's because they just want to win.  In truth, George Bush really earned it on his own given that he was a two-term governor of a major state who'd put together (at least at the time) a very appealing approach to government (compassionate conservativism).  As a UVA grad and an egalitarian, I follow Mr. Jefferson's approach of meritocracy, and I feel it very deeply.  So if someone from a name family puts themself forth for public office, they better damn well have earned that place and be fully prepared and know why they're running, and how government works before I would even given them any consideration.  That belief holds equally true for those who would seek staff jobs.

Given the choice between …1. … one with a bachelor’s degree in finance from the Wharton School - also where her father attended and shows not even a fundamental grasp of economics - and whose primary personal claim to fame is being a fashion ‘mogul’ with questionable originality and verifiable lawsuits, along with being dumped by most major retailers, and whose secondary claim to fame is as the daughter of the most corrupt president ever embedded (I refuse to say “elected” because the people’s choice was clearly for his opponent) and who is elbows deep in the Trump Organization, a bastion of questionable business and political practices, and …2. … one with a bachelor’s degree in history from Stanford, a Doctor of Philosophy in International Relations from Oxford, a Master of Public Health degree from Columbia, who has worked continuously in getting people - especially young people - involved in social issues, and who has worked through the Clinton Foundation to promote and assist global health, women’s rights and opportunities, and economic growth …… I would vote for the one who has clearly shown the most resolve, the most commitment, the desire to make the world a better place and not simply make the most profit. Both were born with advantages, but I think the greatest advantage Chelsea had was parents who believed in public service, and while both may be flawed in different ways - as we all are - neither is the provable criminal ‘example’ (“Lock her up!” is not proof, and Hillary has never been indicted after millions of tax dollars were wasted for what was, in the end, admitted to be solely a political ploy to prevent her election) that Ivanka was raised not just to emulate, but to cover for.

Thank you very much for asking me, Lisa.I should explain that as a Briton I had to look up Roe v. Wade; as a man I hardly dare to have an opinion as to whether abortion on request is permissible and proper, but, if I have to take a position, abortion undeniably ends a human life prematurely, and I would hold by the Church of England's very slightly qualified opposition to abortion.But there is some Church support for abortion rights, and if Chelsea Clinton meant that vulnerable or desperate women might seek help but be denied it, there is some basis for her thinking the suggested reversal an unChristian move.That said, in the world as we know it babies have died young all through human history, sometimes naturally, sometimes not; as one example among many, our bombs in World War Two did not have an ingenious device fitted so that they would avoid killing babies; and today, with all the advances in medical science, it is still not possible to save every unborn baby or every new-born. But I feel sure we will not be wrong if we trust that God is going to give every one of these children their lives, everlasting life, truly the Holy Innocents indeed.Most grateful to you again for asking me, Lisa, a hard question for me.With all good wishes,Barrie

Interesting claim - that abortions allowed women to enter the workforce. And thereby improved the economy.I thought economic growth drives employment rates.So, following CC’s logic … economic growth must therefore increase the abortion rate!So much for “post hoc ergo proper hoc” logic.

Here's what Hillary told Dateline in November 2001:She'd gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was going to go down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and -- and that's when the plane hit.This statement was "contradicted" when Chelsea spoke of her whereabouts on 9/11 to Talk.Clinton had been staying with her high school friend Nicole Davison in her apartment near Union Square . . . After they had coffee together, Davison went to work and Clinton returned to the apartment.Davison called Clinton with the news of the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center. Clinton turned on the television and watched the second plane crash into the second WTC tower, and tried to reach her mother in Washington, but after speaking to her assistant, the phone line went dead.. . .Chelsea Clinton was downtown in line at a pay phone when she heard the rumble of the second tower collapsing.Hillary appeared to mistake whether her daughter had already or was intending to jog around the World Trade Center, and did not provide details of where, exactly, she was when she got a cup of coffee at the time of the attack.This so-called "fabrication" got the most traction during the 2008 campaign on right-wing blogs and websites, where commentators trumped up - often without citing the original material - what Hillary had said to make it as though she'd embellished her daughter's whereabouts on the day to gain sympathy.

They have said on multiple occasions over the years that they wanted more kids and it just didn't happen.Hillary is widely thought to have endometriosis (although she herself hasn't confirmed it) which often impairs fertility.In fact Chelsea was conceived on a trip to Bermuda and they were scheduled to meet with a fertility specialist when they got back from that trip.They had always wanted more children and even considered adoption once Chelsea was getting ready to leave/leaving but none of that happened (presumably because of Lewinsky as the timing fits perfectly.)While she was Secretary of State a journalist asked her about it and she said: "But I just didn't have any more children, not that I didn't want any more."In a 1996 TIME Magazine interview she said: say we're hoping that we have another child, I would be surprised but not disappointed. My friends would be appalled, I'm sure. But I think it would be terrific."Here is an article devoted to their discussions of adoption:Hillary Clinton wants another childSo in summary, they wanted to it just never happened.