Kyle Drennan, writer for Conservative watchdog site Newsbusters, was beside himself over the porcelain port-a-potties ordered for the guests, outraged that a wedding-related segment on CBS' "The Early Show" "did not raise any questions about the over-the-top extravagance of the affair, which is estimated to cost a few million dollars."
Oy. Please. First of all, the Clintons are rich. And famous. He's a former president. She's secretary of state. They're having major VIPs. Who didn't think Chelsea's wedding would be extravagant? But more to the point: It's their money. If they want to spend it on a gigantic, happy party for their family, that's their business. Never mind that if they cheaped out on their daughter's wedding -- with that guest list! -- I have no doubt that we'd aaaall be hearing about it.
But let's just leave Chelsea and her parents out of it for a second, and focus on the hypocrisy here. I seem to remember another former president had a daughter who got married: Jenna Bush, on the family's Crawford ranch in May 2008. Let's look at some of the modest little details: Oscar de la Renta gown. (Chelsea's gown is Vera Wang.) Over 200 guests (like Chelsea). Fourteen bridesmaids (each with a custom-made dress). A "giant cross made of Texas limestone," commissioned for the event. Um, am I crazy or does that all sound completely un-cheap?
Estimates for the Crawford wedding seem to be at $100,000, though I can't find an official, confirmed source, and I have to say that sounds more than a bit low. (I do know that the Bushes saved on the cost of renting a property because they own their ranch!) By contrast -- and it's a contrast lots of critics have made (some abhorrently so), Chelsea's nuptials are estimated at around $2 million. (If that -- the wedding details have been kept strictly private, and that may well be an inflated estimate.) Never mind that the median price of an American wedding is apparently $17,500 -- way less than Chelsea's nups, but probably representing a much greater percentage of financial resources for the families involved.
But honestly: Who cares? This isn't your money, and it's not your wedding. Jenna Bush, Chelsea Clinton, any of them -- unless you are the bride, groom or wedding planner, it's really not your business. But if you're so concerned, cheer up: the Clintons are pushing money back into the economy! Getting people building, doing, working! Look, I'm no fan of the inflated wedding industry, but there's no denying that it puts lots of people to work across many different industries. Chelsea's wedding is doing that in Rhinebeck, in spades. (And I actually think those fancy port-a-potties are enormously considerate of their guests. You spend all day getting dressed up for a wedding, you'd like to do your business in a little bit of comfort, is all I'm saying.)
Upshot: The Clintons are rich. So are the Bushes. So are a lot of people in the higher echelons of the government. Senators! Congresspeople! Mitt Romney! Meg Whitman! Rich people have more money, and thus seem to spend it in wild disproportion to the rest of society. Romney spent an estimated $42 million of his own money on his 2008 presidential bid; now his name is on the shortlist of potential GOP nominees for 2012. Is spending $2 million to pay local businesses to put on your event so much worse than spending 10 times as much on high-priced Beltway consultants? Rich people spend money differently, whether they're Republicans or Democrats. But it's amazing how the double-standard is applied depending on who is outraged by what.
Not a fan of Chelsea's wedding? Too bad. It's her wedding. Not yours. So bite into that gluten-free cake with gusto, I say. And thank you for helping the economy.





