Hillary is smiling and Chelsea is such a good person.

The Daily News makes an article out of the fact that Hillary Clinton in smiling. At least it's a short article.

The Washington Post makes an immense article out of the way we don't know too much about Chelsea Clinton. When she's out campaigning doesn't reflect the "ironic, sarcastic and self-deprecating" attitude of "the pop culture and politics that played out while [people in her generation] grew up in the 1980s, 1990s and onward."

The quest for authenticity frames several of the anxieties surrounding today's young people, and even though she could be more open, Chelsea may embody our generation's professional ideals: she is a well-paid do-gooder. Many in our generation were bred on the optimism of the 1990s economic boom; we cultivated a certain sense of entitlement after seeing so many college graduates strike it rich with quirky, massively influential ideas in Silicon Valley. But the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks made many of us pivot to think about the world and public service, and the Iraq war only hardened many young people's cynicism about newsmakers and reporters.

Maybe Chelsea reached this workplace ideal of neatly combining altruism with affluence at her first job at McKinsey, an elite consulting firm, where she specialized in health care, or possibly now, at her hedge fund.

What? How is Chelsea a do-gooder? What is all this blather about?