Here’s Why Chelsea Clinton’s Baby Is Going to Be the Worst Media Story of 2016

In one astonishing “Morning Joe” segment.

Chelsea Clinton (center), NBC Special Correspondent, interviews Michelle Rhee (right), founder and CEO of Students First, and Ronald Carter, Ph.D, president of Johnson C. Smith University, during "Conversations with the Next Generation" at Discovery Place in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 5.
National Journal
Matt Berman
April 18, 2014, 4:53 a.m.

You’ve prob­ably heard: Chelsea Clin­ton is hav­ing a baby. Hil­lary Clin­ton is go­ing to be a grand­moth­er, Bill Clin­ton a grand­fath­er. You’ve also prob­ably heard that Hil­lary Clin­ton is very pos­sibly go­ing to run for pres­id­ent in 2016.

You know what that means: UN­LEASH THE BABY ANA­LYS­IS.

There’s already been a start­ling amount writ­ten about what the Roy­al Clin­ton Baby means for Hil­lary Clin­ton’s po­ten­tial run in 2016. The Chris­ti­an Sci­ence Mon­it­or asks: Does the in­com­ing grand­child make her less likely to run for pres­id­ent? Will the even­tu­al child be a cam­paign sur­rog­ate, asks The Wash­ing­ton Post? Whatever it is, the in­fant-to-be is already a “politico-ob­stet­ric earth­quake,” says Politico.

None of this even a little tops what happened on MS­N­BC’s Morn­ing Joe on Fri­day morn­ing, where An­drew Ross Sor­kin of The New York Times tried to make the case that the baby is go­ing to be a game-changer for Hil­lary Clin­ton’s 2016 hopes to a deeply, deeply skep­tic­al pan­el.

Like any good con­ver­sa­tion, this one starts with a deni­al: “I don’t want to be cyn­ic­al, and I’m not sug­gest­ing any­one is hav­ing a baby for elec­tion pur­poses…. “

The clip is beau­ti­ful and needs no fur­ther in­tro­duc­tion. But really, please just watch the whole thing.

×