Bush Twins Vs. Chelsea Clinton

Score one for the Republican girls who have dedicated themselves to public service.

One thought comes to mind, though. Chelsea's parents were in public service but have no record of accomplishment in the private sector. That has been a big criticism, and one that is important to keep in mind with the Presidential ambitions of both Clinton and Obama. Chelsea's decision to make her mark in the private sector could be viewed as a response to that criticism.

Likewise, a criticism of the Bush family is that they are no-talent ass clowns entitled by name and wealth. In essence, they are the rich, white guy's version of affirmative action. G.W. would be a nobody if it weren't for his daddy, blah, blah, blah. In addition, it is common knowledge that Rethuglicans are all about the almighty dollar and hate the little people. By serving the world's poor, sick and needy, the Bush twins blunt that criticism. They could have joined a hedge fund, instead they're reaching out to the less fortunate.

In some ways, all the girls are rebelling (or conforming to political expedience, depending on your viewpoint) against expectations. Chelsea is still the daughter of a guy from Hope, Arkansas. She has something to prove against the very elite the Clintons alternately despise and aspire to belong to. Chelsea ain't no hillbilly. And the Bush girls aren't empty-headed, hard-hearted privileged debutantes. Maybe if they feed enough AIDs patients, people will cut them some slack.

The major difference is political stripe. The Bush girls are doomed to bad press--they're children of Republicans. Chelsea is destined for lavish praise--she's a Democrat.

H/T Conservative Grapevine