Chelsea Clinton | Democratic Party | New York | News

Chelsea Clinton 'Actively Considering' Run for Congress: Report

Chelsea Clinton is considering running for Congress, Talk of the Sound reports:

ClintonClinton has been approached by "the right people" in the New York Democratic Party, according to one source in Albany. While no decision has been made, Clinton is said to be "actively considering" a Congressional run from New York State in 2012...

...The discussions of running Chelsea Clinton for a house seat grew out of the redistricting plans currently underway in the New York State legislature in Albany.

The plan is to identify an open seat for Clinton in or around New York City where she currently resides with her husband, Marc Mezvinsky. While no specific district has been determined, New York City and Westchester are said to be the focus with New York's 18th District considered a strong possibility. The 18th encompasses much of Westchester County, just south of where her parents have maintained a home for the past 12 years.

Representative Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) is the current Representative from the 18th district and is expected to retire in 2012, the paper adds.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Has Chelsea ever mentioned having political aspirations before? This is a surprise to me.

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | Oct 26, 2011 6:28:07 PM

  2. Maybe there will be another Clinton in the White House after all.

    Posted by: ynot | Oct 26, 2011 6:38:57 PM

  3. Are you kidding me, this is the least surprising thing in the world! It's also the best news I've heard all day

    Posted by: Towlehead | Oct 26, 2011 6:56:13 PM

  4. so what? who cares?

    Posted by: JEFFUWS | Oct 26, 2011 6:59:52 PM

  5. How convenient having a former President for a father, a current Secretary of State for a mother, and a banker for a husband. This just reeks of privilege.

    Nevertheless, I would love to vote "Clinton" again.

    Posted by: Max | Oct 26, 2011 7:06:07 PM

  6. We seriously need a constitutional amendment barring nepotism. Yes, it might deprive us of a wonderful leader from time to time. None of those possibilities can override the certainty that Dubya would never have held office but for his last name.

    Case closed in my opinion.

    Posted by: BobN | Oct 26, 2011 7:37:23 PM

  7. Hurrah for dynastic politics.

    What with the Bushes and now the Clintons, you'd think we were still a monarchy.

    In a country with 300,000,000 people we do NOT need another Clinton in a position of power.

    And I say that as a lifelong (and currently VERY disillusioned) Democrat.

    I will NEVER vote for Chelsea Clinton. Her father is responsible in some part for the economic mess our country is in.

    Posted by: David | Oct 26, 2011 7:38:33 PM

  8. I'd vote for her

    Posted by: Reality | Oct 26, 2011 8:23:30 PM

  9. SAVE the DATE December 8th Chelsea Clinton teams up with President Clinton in NYC

    Posted by: Amy Dugan | Oct 26, 2011 9:46:28 PM

  10. I was just wondering when Chelsea would run for office. I like her - though also agree with the other posters about the privilege and family dynasty thing.

    Posted by: mike128 | Oct 26, 2011 9:49:22 PM

  11. So David, what part of "the economic mess our country is in" is Obama responsible for? Would you vote for him again?

    This should be fun...

    Prototype liberal response: change subject, blame Bush, bash Fox, mention Iraq, and then call somebody racist...

    Just don't actually answer the question.

    Posted by: Max | Oct 26, 2011 9:52:21 PM

  12. I think this needs to be updated. All parties involved (Including Chelsea herself) are denying this.

    Actually calling it a "Joke".

    Posted by: Justin Hollon | Oct 26, 2011 11:36:19 PM

  13. Max

    The part Obama is responsible for is compromising too much with repubs and not going all FDR new new deal when he had a chance his first 2 years to YES clean up the bush repub mess
    (and yes Clinton with conservative dems + repubs voting to remove the glass-seegal regulation back in the day)

    Voting again for Obama? Hell yes! though we can survive a romney presidency if it happens but YOU max need to convince the repub base to 1st nominate him over the crazies (highly unlikely) and then turn out to vote if romney is the repub nominee (most likely a brokered convention forced by the $ repubs) which will be almost impossible due to him not passing the extreme tea party types purity test and the xtianistas who will never ever vote for a "cultist with a different jesus" mormon (all evangelical and catholic pulpits continually preach about mormons being anti-christ with a different jesus)

    You have a lot of work ahead of you max

    Posted by: say what | Oct 26, 2011 11:43:46 PM

  14. There is a leftover cadre of "Friends of Bill" and disappointed Hilary supporters who don't know what to do with themselves after Mrs. Clinton retires in 2013. They float various memes in the media to see which one will stick. You know, the Biden/Clinton job switch, Hillary in 2016 and now Chelsea. I have no problem with Chelsea, but this is a solution from the 1% for which there is no problem. Let her work her way up and gain valuable experience through city council, etc. like the rest of us would have to do.

    The Friends of Bill/Hill need to retire to Boca.

    Posted by: Gus | Oct 27, 2011 3:31:31 AM

  15. Yes I'll vote for Obama again as otherwise we'll get a monstrously evil Republican like Bush instead.

    I do not believe in monarchies or dynastic poiltics so I would not vote for Chelsea Clinton or Michelle Obama or anyone who owes their position entirely to who their relatives are.

    Thankfully this rumour seems to be false.
    Chelsea Clinton is not needed in politics.

    Posted by: David | Oct 27, 2011 5:14:59 AM

  16. I don't mind "dynastic" politics as long as the "dynasty" is one that has brains in their heads. You go Chelsea!

    Posted by: Jim | Oct 27, 2011 7:36:30 AM

  17. Dynasties have been a feature of American democracy since the time of John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Harrison. And it's not all that uncommon today (check out the number of current Senators and Representatives whose parents/grandparents were also political figures). I am amused that this seems to be an issue for some folks only when a Clinton is involved. I never hear such complaints about the Kennedys. Regardless, I am inclined to believe this is just another bit of uninformed speculation like the supposed Biden/Hillary switch.

    Posted by: Michael Rebain | Oct 27, 2011 8:53:30 AM

  18. At this point, there's no sense in saying "I'll vote for her" or "I'd never vote for her." As far as I know, she has never expressed an opinion on an issue or even a general philosophy or viewpoint. How can one support or oppose a potential candidate without knowing one single thing about what she thinks about anything. What concerns me here (and this as a resident of the city and state of New York) is that the redistricting isn't even finished yet and this story posits that Ms. Clinton will run from whatever district anywhere in the area that seems a good bet. Whatever happened to making the decision to be a part of the political discussion and running for office from the district where you actually live and where you, in theory, care about the community and the people who live there and want to serve based on a desire to make things better there? I know this is basically what her mother did for the 2000 election, but the difference is that Bill and Hillary legitimately did not have a home to return to after the White House and would have had to chosen someplace to live anyway. Chelsea and Marc presumably have a home of their own somewhere in the city and, if she wants to run for Congress, she should be running from whatever district she actually lives in.

    Posted by: Jere | Oct 27, 2011 10:00:47 AM

  19. Good for Chelsea and good for her potential constituents. She represents the best of both her parents and I think she could make a real difference to the country. If I lived in her district, I'd certainly vote for her!

    Posted by: shle896 | Oct 27, 2011 12:29:48 PM

  20. Um, do we care where she stands on a few issues, or am I just being silly? Let's just assume she agrees with me on everything.

    Posted by: wimsy | Oct 27, 2011 2:03:49 PM

  21. No more Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons- does notbody realize that the whole idea of democracy is that we AREN'T ruledby inbred dynasties?

    Posted by: Chris Stansfield | Oct 27, 2011 3:37:28 PM

  22. Why aren't we debating the merits of the potential candidate....She is smart, all the right things, a seasoned campaigner and yes she is connected.

    Posted by: Daniel | Oct 27, 2011 5:22:40 PM

  23. Yea, she'll support marriage equality & the divine right of the banking industry...blah blah blah.. same ol, same ol

    Posted by: Von Lmo | Oct 27, 2011 9:03:28 PM

  24. All family history aside, how can you possibly say that you would vote for her without knowing anything about her political beliefs? The problem with presidential politics, in the United States and elsewhere, is that people buy a brand and don't take the time to learn and understand the policies that will affect their lives. Chelsea has always come across as a nice kid, and I'm sure she's met all the right people growing up who would be great contacts if she was to get into power, but what does she stand for? Find that out for yourself before you give her your support.

    Posted by: Callum | Oct 28, 2011 4:41:29 AM

Post a comment


« «Mo'Nique Speaks Out for Marriage Equality: 'Let's Use Our Will to Let Others Be Free'« «