I think the title of the article might more accurately have been "My Clinton Predilection"

Last stop was Hawaii, which Obama carried by 50%. I recall her going to Idaho, which also resulted in an overkill for Obama. She also went on a breakfast date with the 21 year old WI superdelegate, and he has since gone over to Obama. Flattery aside, has anyone actually seen her speak and been persuaded by her to vote for Clinton?

this divinely ordained holy family will have another heir to the throne.

I met her recently, and she is friendly with everyone, not just men (in reference to the batting eyelashes comment). She was very articulate, and she fielded questions with ease, expertise, passion, and energy that is unusual for someone her age. She relates really well to young people, and she isn't at all arrogant or condescending. I think that she could end up in a public office, and to be quite honest, I would find it a lot easier to vote for her than for her mother.

In the future it would probably be better to ignore this bit of 'punditry' rather than spread it around. This preoccupation is basically a social disease and is best discussed as such, if at all.

The media love the structure of aristocracy because it gives them running storylines that they can lazily spin out time after time. But hasn't history taught us aristocracy is a piss-poor form of government?

This site sounds a lot like Tim Russert, who picks up irrelavent CRAP and regurgitates is for no apparent reason other than it has the word "Clinton" in it. Who gives a rat's ass what some dingbat is speculating, just because it involves a Clinton?

What if Clinton and Obama said where they stand on "the Unitary Presidency"? That could be worth mentioning....

I was onto this awhile ago. Seeing Chelsea with her mom, it seemed to me she was the better campaigner, the more charismatic of the two. It was the picture of Chelsea with her mom in that photo album thing the Clinton campaign put out. It was very striking how natural she was.

Still, she's probably hamstrung by a few limitations: 1) the Clinton machine and brand, which brings its own pile of baggage; 2) the legacy/aristocracy issue (e.g., "Can other families please be president now, guys? Clintons and Bushes, we're looking at you!"); and 3) that somehow she's "owed" the presidency because her mom had it "stolen" from her by another candidate. But if she dumped 1, and earned her bones on her own, she might offset 2 and 3 and make a legitimate go of it.

For my part, I'd rather see more people engaged in the political process, rather than the tired tropes of XYZ well-connected, political family doyenne passing the torch to her daughter. It would be nice "Clinton Revenge" for Chelsea to be the first woman president, but it'd be nice to see a non-Clinton female candidate also win that title, too.

Thats what this sounds like. I'll never understand the fascination some people have for that unpleasant borish family.

"to finish the Clinton business"? I've got news for you, the Clinton "business" ended when he left office.

Twenty years of seasoning and Chelsea will be ready to go to the mat for the middle class . . .

God forbid two people from the same family ever run for office!

No, I'd much rather the old rich white men that make up 99.95% of politicians continue to lead us - just as long as they have different last names!

Has anybody heard Chelsea Clinton speak?

Frankly I didn't know she could pump air past her vocal cords and coordinate her tongue and lips to form vowels and syllables in alignment with the complexities of the English language. Let alone run for office.

Call me when somebody has heard this human speak.

Why do some people always seem to assume that a child of a prominent political family is vitually predestined to run for public office him/herself? I've never seen any real indication that Chelsea has the desire to go that route. I think her campaigning for her mother is basically to support her family, not a sign that she herself might be considering a political career. In fact her life appears to be moving in a different direction. I believe she's building a successful business career, and I also seem to have read that there's a steady man in her life. I wish her well whatever she does.

That was Ms Clinton's responce to a voter who asked about her mother's Iraq vote at a campaign appearance.

Oh yes, she's just what we need.

Another Clinton will give pundits a chance to use up the many insults and attacks they didn't have time to use this election season because there simply wasn't enough space in their columns.

Talk about ambition! Hillary isn't doing os well, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

No, I'd much rather the old rich white men that make up 99.95% of politicians continue to lead us - just as long as they have different last names!

I understand what you're saying, and yet, I don't know. How fitting that 35 years is the first year somebody can run for president, so Chelsea can hit the ground running, touting "35 years of experience" that make her "ready to lead on Day One." Perhaps she can cite being born as a governor's daughter and growing up as a presidential child gave her the vital and necessary experience she could bring to the table.

If Chelsea wants a career in politics, I think she could probably do it, although it should be in spite of her background, not because of it.

The pundits seem to have given up on Roger Clinton. If he found Jesus he might be just as qualified as our current president.

America has made it quite clear that they will vote in anyone before they vote in a woman.

I agree she could do it, and that it would be in spite of her family.

An above poster put it best in calling this "creepy Clinton porn"... too many on the left and right have really strange obsessions with that family.

The people that scream "aristocracy" at any mention of the Clinton name are tiresome. The fact that they equate the Clintons with the Bush family (for which there is a much better case) is silly. If, hypothetically, Chelsea runs for president in 20 years and wins, who cares? I can't believe that people genuinely think the Clintons have drafted some master plan in a smoky underground bunker.