Comments on: Chelsea Clinton: Big Marriage May be Politcal Mistake for Hillary

By: Toughenough

Toughenough — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:10:06 +0000

Give us a break, Does anyone really care? I’m a conservative republican and I don’t see that the wedding helped or hendered either Bill or Hillary. I don’t care for either because of their politics-Heck the wedding is at least some what a normality in their less than normal lives. Anyone who could would (IMO) help their daughter have her dream wedding, although I find it a big waste it is not my call. I’m poor, not dirt poor but poor, my daughtr was raised to live within her means and her wedding was elegant outdoors for about 1,500.00, Had she had more she probably wouldn’t have spent it. Her dress $500-David’s Bridal it ws exactly what she wanted, her cake was a gift from her brother and sister-in-law, they baked and decorated (1st time-perfect), her venue 200 year old cabin $500, flowers-roses from roadside stand 3 dozen $40, food $100 pork roast bought on sale cooked by family friend, canopies $300-discount store…
I lived in Ormond Bch, Fl when Ron Rice maker of Hawaiian Tropic suntan oil got married, there was public outcry over the amount he spent…His money/his wedding.
I really don’t see that anyone will complain about Bill and Hillary helping, at least not enough to hurt them politically, their politics will do that!

By: sue2

sue2 — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:00:49 +0000

I bet every motel room in town was full so that in itself is a good thing.

By: Priya

Priya — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:56:56 +0000

This wedding would be considered CHEAP if you are going by ‘elite standards’. plllleasesee.

The rich in India spend more, as the wedding sets the tone of who you are in society. The Britsh Indian Mittals cost of the wedding exceeded £30 million ($78 million)- most expensive in history they say…

and anyhow, spending spending spending is the key to getting out of this economic rut. the expenditure of this wedding certainly helped that town’s economy..

By: MK DAMODARAN

MK DAMODARAN — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:54:54 +0000

CHELSEA was born in the Zodiacal Sign of Pisces ruled by 3.She weds at the age of 30(3+0=3).
Chelsea’s birth was on February 27,1980.Hence her birth number is 9.The birth date of Mezvinsky was on December 15,1977.His birth number is 6.Numbers,3,6 and 9 are associate numbers,with mutually harmonious vibrations.The Zodiacal Sign of Mezvinsky is Sagittarius ruled by number 3.So,the birth signs of Chelsea and Mezvinsky are mutually related.The occult number of Mezvinssky is 34.The occult number of Chelsea is 25.Both adds up to 7.So,there is intense harmonious vibrations between Chelsea and Mezvinsky by virtue of birth number,occult number and Zodiacal sign.
The marriage is numerologically related to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.Hillary is now 62 years old.Sixty two adds up to 8.The birth number and occult number of Hillary Clinton is 8.Number 8 has highly influenced her.
To begin with, she was officially nominated to run for New York Senate seat on May 17, 2000 (1 + 7 = 8) After winning the election, she became a Member of the 107th Senate (1 + 0 + 7 = 8).
She is the US Secretary of State under the 44th(4+4=8) US President.
She was appointed Secretary of State on December 1.On December 1,she was 61 years and 37 days old.The age adds up to 8(61+ 37=98,9 +8=17,1+ 7=8).
The birth number of Bill Clinton is 1.Similarly his occult number is also 1.Further,he was born in the Zodiacal Sign of Leo ruled by 1.The marriage of his daughter took place in the Zodiacal Sign of Leo.Number 1 has immensely influenced Bill Clinton.
Now, see the strong influence of number 1 on Bill Clinton.
1)He was elected U.S. President at the age of 46 which adds up to 1 (4
+ 6 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1)
2)On May 28, 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “Paula
Jones sexual discrimination suit against Clinton can proceed while he
is in office” (2 + 8 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1).
3)On January 10, 1998 Clinton deposed in the Paula Jones case (1 + 0 =
1).
4)Kenneth Starr submitted his enquiry report in Monica Lewinsky case
on September 10, 1998 (1 + 0 = 1)
5)Papers in Paula Jones case released on October 19, 1998 (1+9 = 10, 1
+ 0 = 1)
6)Congressional hearing on impeachment began on November 19, 1998.
7)There were 37 members in the House Judiciary Committee (3 + 7 = 10,
1 + 0=1)
8)’One’ member belonging to the Republican Party voted along with
Democrats.
9)The Senate voted on October 28, 1998 on an impeachment trial plan
that called Monica Lewinsky to testify (2 + 8 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1).
10)The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on December
19, 1998 (1 + 9 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1)
11)Questioning of Monica Lewinsky started on February 1, 1999.
12)Clinton was acquitted on impeachment charges only because 10
Republicans cross-voted in his favour ( 1 + 0 = 1).
13)Clinton was the ‘first ‘President to visit Gaza Strip.

By: TxLady

TxLady — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:53:16 +0000

How much Bill and Hillary Clinton spent on the wedding is not going to affect how anyone votes.

Before news of the wedding I was speaking with friends about the economy and the general state of the nation and we all concurred that even though Bill Clinton had a few issues while in office we were all better off when he was in office.

The Clintons had one child and for all you know her grandparents could have started a “wedding savings account” when she was a teen and they all added to it each year. Maybe not, but why would the cost of the wedding keep anyone from voting for Hillary?

I would rather have a president that spends her own money on a wedding than one that spends the earnings of my great-great-great-great-great grandchildren the first year in office.

By: American

American — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:22:40 +0000

“but rumors insist most of the guests are in her age group, while political friends of her parents are few (e.g. no invitation to the President for a photo op).”

Who needs a photo op? Everyone in the world knows who Hillary and Bill Clinton are and Obama is on TV every single day talking about how wonderful he is. It appears to me that they had plenty of guests, so I don’t get your point.

The wedding didn’t cost you a dime. Lots of people were working to make it happen, so how is that a bad thing for Hillary? If she runs against Obama how is that going to hurt her? He flys his wife to date nights that are paid for by the taxpayers.

This whole article is a waste of web space.

By: sue2

sue2 — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:14:24 +0000

Celebrity weddings happen all of the time. By next week we will have seen the pictures and we will all move on to the next one.

How the Clinton’s spend their money is of no concern to me. It really is their business, not ours. I agree with hogancity this kind of spending is EXACTLY what we need in this economy. Obama doesn’t want people to go to Las Vegas so the guests made him happy by going to the wedding.

By: filipino-american4HRC

filipino-american4HRC — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:49 +0000

I think it’s important to remember that all this alleged wedding costs (from $3-5 million) were pulled out of thin air by supposed wedding experts. Think about it — Tom Cruise’s wedding to Katie Holmes supposedly cost about $3-million back then — and guests were flown to France or wherever the venue was, and they had two venues: one for the ceremony and another for the reception. There’s no way Chelsea’s wedding would have cost over a million, even if you have the $15,000 toilets. Don’t be fooled by Limbaugh. There are enough anti-Hillary forces more than willing to create an issue because they’re afraid that she might run again. Chelsea’s upbringing trumps the so-called “family values” Conservatives. After two nitwits in the White House, Americans realize they never had it so good since the Clinton years. Hillary’s competence and hard work everyday — while Obama has spent more time golfing and going on vacations on taxpayer dime — shows the voters what they lost when the Democratic Party pobahs selected Obama for the nomination. Now, if Americans will take it against the Clintons for spending on their only daughter’s wedding, then they get the govt they deserve.

By: judithan

judithan — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:52:01 +0000

I always thought the Clintons actions were for the people and by the people. This shows us it’s all about the money. I think Chelsea should have a wonderful wedding. But this wedding is over the top! Get real Arkansas is their HOME, I don’t care where he lives today, or how much he gets for speeches. They’ve lost touch with the real world. Who are they trying to impress? I see this as political suicide for Hillary. The working class people will not look favorability on this wedding when they are worried if they have a job and can put food on the table, pay for their mortgage and still have a job to go to.
There have been several marriages with presidents children but none compare to this excess.
Now Rush is speaking up for the port-a -potty? That’s scarey!!!!!!
I don’t care that they’re spending 3 plus million dollars for a wedding, I care that Americans are strugging each day to make ends meet. While these people suck every dime out of us they can. There seems to be no difference in any of the political parties with their need for greed and power.

By: hogancity

hogancity — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:12:17 +0000

I think this kind of spending is EXACTLY what we need in this economy. Saving it in the bank does absolutely nothing but makes the bank the rich even richer. Doesn’t it make sense money into the economy by SPENDING. Didn’t this wedding HElP that local town’s economy. Come on. Where is the negativity in that? All we keep hearing is that people aren’t spending enough, which slows down the economy, so I think the nay-saying need to NOT-say anything else about the rich spending money.. Not unless they don’t want our economy to grow.