May 22nd, 2008
11:25 AM ET
10 years ago

Bill Clinton says Chelsea may go into politics

Bill Clinton says Chelsea may go into politics someday.

Bill Clinton says Chelsea may go into politics someday.

(CNN) - Is politics in Chelsea Clinton's future?

Bill Clinton says maybe.

In an interview with People Magazine, the former president said he thinks his daughter is a natural campaigner who may one day follow her parents into the family business.

"If you asked me [whether Chelsea would go into politics] before Iowa, I would have said, 'No way. She is too allergic to anything we do.' But she is really good at it," the former president said in the latest edition of the magazine

Clinton also said Chelsea was deeply upset by her mother's disappointing third-place finish in Iowa in January.

"It all changed after Iowa," he said. "She realized her mother lost Iowa 100 percent because of younger voters. She was upset, bawled, went to her employer and said, 'Look, you got to let me go or give me an indefinite leave of absence. I'm not letting my mother go down like this.' "

Read more from Bill Clinton's interview

Filed under: Bill Clinton • Chelsea Clinton
soundoff (329 Responses)
  1. martin

    i'm sure hillary and bill have ruined any chances for chelsea to be an elected official.she's learned too many bad habits from her mother and father.

    May 22, 2008 10:08 am at 10:08 am |
  2. NC

    She'll run as a Republican because the Clintons are mud in the Democratic Party.

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  3. Beatriz Perez-Sanchez

    From my understanding of history, I always believed that the American Revolution took place largely as a reaction to the dictates and excesses of monarchy and that it was a reaction against the concept of monarchy in general. What has happened to the republic of Washington and Jefferson? Now, more that two hundred and thirty years after the Declaration of Independence, the United States finds itself with the luxury of not one but two royal dynasties – the Bushes and the Clintons. Perhaps that explains why Hillary expected a coronation rather than a contest.

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  4. Jen B

    Just what this country needs, another Clinton to lie and pander to voters. And they call Obama elitist.

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  5. Blaising

    God help us...not another one!!

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  6. Ben

    Unfortunately it seems that only the children of the elite become our leaders. Its a shame. If you people really want some change go with a third party candidate or right now the first place underdog, Ron Paul. Yes, he may be different, but different is what we need if we really want to get back on track. Don't you people realize that we can remove anyone from office with a just cause? If we want change we can't keep with this "traditional" stuff.........

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  7. stanley white

    LOOK OUT FOR THE SET_UP, this has been brewing all along for the clintons. they are trying to extend their dynisty in politics, buy trying to crown the "AIR APPARENT" . Governor bill richerson , i think said it best, are we suppost to be loyal to the clintons , even down to their daughter? i think most people have a bond with bill clinton, but not his wife, and certinally not his daughter.She has not estabilseh any repor with the american people, except to say that she is the daughter of a past president , and the daughter of a mother who was trying to be the president and failed. She has no standing in this regard, and has no reacord of any political achievement on her own, except name reconition.

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  8. wwf

    Hey, cut her some slack. If you have not walked a mile in her shoes, put a sock in it. She could very well end up being the first woman president. From what I have seen of her I think she handles herself well. Say what you want about the Clintons, they do know politics. She will be her own person, not a copy of Bill and Hillary. For the record, I will be voting for Obama and have supported him from the beginning. I also do not want to see Hillary as vp, but hope she would take a high cabinet position.

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  9. Stephy

    Why am I not surprised? I thought this country was headed by a government, not a royal dynasty... I am tired of Clintons!

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  10. Y

    It's unfortunate that Hillary has ruined the Clinton name. Perhaps Chelsea will get married and take her husband's name. I'm sure Obama has a brother or cousin she could marry. She'll do well with the name Obama.

    Obama '08

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  11. Anonymous

    To BillJ, by saying that Chesea is good looking, I can tell you're living in a cave. Come on! She ugly as hell.

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  12. for the good of the democratic party

    I just don't follow the logic of some of Senator Clinton's supporters in this blog. They are not being completely honest with themselves and many of their arguments lack rationale. I get it if you prefer Clinton over Obama…but to make up things about Obama or resort to calling him every nasty name you can think of as a way to justify your belief that Senator Clinton is the best suited candidate is not just utterly ridiculous, but vindictive and hateful as well.
    I've read "Obama played the race card first", but nothing never follows that statement to explain the how or when. Is he being accused of playing the race card just by virtue of him being interracial. I've read Obama is a racist. That again defies logic… the man is interracial (black & white). He's constantly argued that a person's race shouldn't matter. His speech spoke to issues and concerns on race held by blacks, whites, hispanics, etc. In short, he said we need to get past those fears, the anger & hang-ups and work together. You all heard it. Maybe you refused to be believe that he was sincere, but you all heard it.
    Senator Clinton made a stupid remark about being the most electable candidate because she has more white hard-working American voters. When has Senator Obama said anything that remotely resembles that? When has he said that he is more electible because of the votes of one segment of the population? Senator Clinton hasn't even apologized for that statement. I watched interview after interview of WV voters stating out loud that they won't vote for Obama because he's black. I don't believe that Senator Clinton is a racist. However, she has certainly made racially devisive statements that made racism seem acceptable by playing on the unfounded fears and the bigotry of those voters who were more inclined to vote against Obama simply because of his race. Yet, so many of her supporters refuse to hold her accountable for it. I don't hold her responsible for the blatant racism voiced by her supporters. But she had a responsibility to affirmatively state that racism should not be tolerated under any circumstances and that she is firmly against it. But she didn't do that because she wanted their votes. She's not stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing when she did it. Neither candidate is responsible for racism and neither one of them are racists. However, Senator Clinton has played on the racism harbored by some of her voters in an insidious manner.
    Throughout this campaign Senator Clinton has changed her tune and made irrational arguments whenever something has not gone her way. Every time one of her or President Clinton's arguments fail.. Obama is somehow made responsible (e.g. he played the race card, he stood in the way of Michigan & Florida voters, he is a sexist, he runs the media, etc.) The truth is he ran a better organized campaign, won the most delegates and states. He has not discounted any of the states he lost (unlike Senator Clinton) and he always congratulated Senator Clinton on her wins (again unlike Senator Clinton). Some of the Clinton supporters on this blog are not being intellectually honest.
    To both Obama & Clinton Supporters: Being bitter, acting like sore losers, and resorting to namecalling is counterproductive and in no way helps either candidate or the democratic party.

    May 22, 2008 10:09 am at 10:09 am |
  13. La Vache

    I hope she doesn't. If she has 1/2 the mind of her parents, this nation will plummet to hell in a handbasket faster than our current administration.

    May 22, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  14. Sam in Indiana

    Didn't we know all along the Clintons want to create a monarchy for themselves? This is America people.

    May 22, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  15. orlando

    I think this is great news. Go CC

    May 22, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  16. Nadeem

    The drama of the Clintons is never ending, is this all about them and not about the country.

    May 22, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  17. Guess who else is on leave?

    Michelle Obama's on leave from her $300 thousand /year job at the University of Chicago health center. And guess how SHE got her education at Ivy League colleges - through affirmative action and government-backed student loans! But that's different, huh?

    May 22, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  18. Steph

    If Chelsea didn't say it don't believe it. Chelsea state a while ago that she would not go into politics.

    May 22, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  19. nic

    It's one thing to get "into" politics, and it's another to get into public service. It's unfortunate that most of our federal payroll doesn't seem to know the difference.

    May 22, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  20. desertique

    This woman cannot relate or speak for the average college student today.

    May 22, 2008 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  21. Marilyn

    If that is what she wants to do, why not? We all get to make our own career choices, so why shouldn't she? You Clinton haters should just get over yourselves!

    May 22, 2008 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  22. Ex-Hillary supporter

    Most of the country is already suffering from Clinton fatigue. Perhaps Chelsea would do better to follow the example of most people her age, get a real job and be less dependent on her parents.

    May 22, 2008 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  23. RobWA

    NOT. The generation that is in love with the Clintons is getting older and older and older.... the NEW generation that WON'T vote for a Clinton is younger and going to be increasingly in charge.... face it Boomers – your time is coming to a close. Sorry its the truth.

    May 22, 2008 10:12 am at 10:12 am |
  24. joe m

    as long as it is her choice, rather than being pushed into this life by her parents.... if it is the later, then she needs to tell both of them to grow up and let her live her own life...

    May 22, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  25. Keith

    Kenedy, Clinton, Bush....God, why can't we get rid of these dynasties?!

    Why do we have elections at all anymore. Lets just crown these people and cut a long story short.

    May 22, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14