Chelsea Clinton's Wedding: Why its getting attention

Feel free to rip me a new one here, but I truly believe Celsea Clinton's wedding is being put in the spotlight these days to get the sheeple used to the notion of our next generation of political elites.

Chelsea Clinton's Wedding Top Secret

Chelsea is marring investment banker Marc Mezvinsky, who is the son of former Pennsylvania Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and former Iowa Rep. Edward Mezvinsky.

I sure wish someone could explain to me why it's getting so much attention. I can't think of a single person who cares if a former president's daughter is getting married. Wonder what it is the media isn't reporting on while trying to focus us all on Chelsea Clinton...

Wasn't her wedding like two or three weeks ago? Thinking I need to readjust the filters in my head...they're not letting a whole lot through these days.

Whether she goes into politics or not is up to her. She has every right to do or not do it. What's the big deal?

Isn't it because her father is a former US President?

That seems to make sense.

I thought she was a lesbian?

Or is that the other one?

Maybe I'm thinking of Dick Cheney's daughter...

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Isn't it because her father is a former US President?

That seems to make sense.

Not really. Her father was president 9 years ago and she's done nothing of note on her own. Of course I hate the country's obsession with delving into the personal lives of celebrities and random people who somehow become famous overnight, so maybe it's just me.

Maybe I'm thinking of Dick Cheney's daughter...

Yeah you're thinking of Cheney's daughter. I find it rather sad that I know that....

Maybe because she's the daughter of a former president and the current Secretary of State?

Or it could just be because it's summertime and the news is traditionally slow this time of year.

It is of more importance because she is the daughter of a former US prez.

But i wonder why so much attention?

Her father is paying the media to focus on it to an extent. Otherwise, no one would give a damn, like me.

Originally posted by Jenna
I hate the country's obsession with delving into the personal lives of celebrities

Originally posted by Jenna
I can't think of a single person who cares if a former president's daughter is getting married.

Yet you posted in the thread twice in an hour. Reminds me of all the people who claim to hate Coulter, Limbaugh,etc. yet can recite every word that comes out of their mouths, or those who say they despise remakes yet run to the theater opening night.

If you don't like it, don't watch it or read sites discussing it. Then it goes away and the media moves on to something else to grab your attention. Pretty simple concept. Repeating that you don't like it just shows you're paying attention to it, thus giving it ratings and keeping the cycle going.

The children of ex presidents always get a certain amount of media coverage. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

But it really does fit very nicely with the whole elite/bloodlines/inbreeding Illuminati theory doesn't it?

The daughter of the Clintons marrying the son of two other politicians and the guy is even an investment banker working for the Wall Street economic elite.

Maybe this is the cause of all the attention. These people are being touted as the new royalty.

It's not surprising. Our culture has become celebrity-mad and anyone whose name is recognizable gets a lot of media attention.

Some in the media will wish her well and some will use the story to rip on her some more (remember when Limbaugh called her a dog?).

I personally like Chelsea so I am glad for her. Those who do not like her will be angry that her wedding is even mentioned in the news. I wasn't so snide when the Bush daughter's wedding was featured in "People" Magazine and in the media everywhere. But then, I generally don't waste my time hating people. Especially not the children of celebrities.

reply to post by Emilyh


How fallacious can you get?

Expressing ones opinion of something doesn't imply a personal interest in said thing.

Also, I find it funny that you berate those who know a lot about something they dislike. I personally laugh at those who claim to hate things they know nothing about.

I appreciate an informed opinion. You obviously don't.

Originally posted by Dookzor
reply to post by Emilyh

 

How fallacious can you get?

Expressing ones opinion of something doesn't imply a personal interest in said thing.

Also, I find it funny that you berate those who know a lot about something they dislike. I personally laugh at those who claim to hate things they know nothing about.

I appreciate an informed opinion. You obviously don't.

How was that opinion "informed"? Basically stating you dislike something twice doesn't fall under the category of informed. It was just a general, run of the mill negative statement on the subject.


I don't like Limbaugh, but according to your logic if I go listen to his show constantly I can then consider myself "informed", and if I don't I know "nothing".

I hate blueberry muffins. Think I'll go order a dozen right now....gotta stay informed.

As SKL put it on a thread.

It is not like there are TWO WARS going on.

You know, while the US is at Walmart the Marines are at War.

Nothing to see here, watch the news on Lindsey Lohan and Mel Gibson.

Let us see, we have the largest FINANCIAL bill since Dec 23 1913 when 3 Senators passed the Federal Reserve Act and took over the US by proxy.

Now they finish the destruction of the US and we get to hear about our next generation monarchy?!

How about Cyrus for Secretary of State in about 16 years. Sounds about right.

I had no idea she was getting/had gotten married. Then again, I don't watch much television. It's funny how much actual news you can get if you don't watch "the news" on television. I've long had the belief that if the mainstream news is making a big deal about something, there is something more important you should know about but they aren't reporting.

Originally posted by Emilyh
Yet you posted in the thread twice in an hour.

Oh, ho, ho. Aren't you the funny one. A question was posed that I knew the answer to so I answered it. Didn't realize it was a crime.

Reminds me of all the people who claim to hate Coulter, Limbaugh,etc. yet can recite every word that comes out of their mouths, or those who say they despise remakes yet run to the theater opening night.

Really? Who did I quote word for word? Or is that a nonsensical comparison I see? Rhetorical question, you don't need to answer.

If you don't like it, don't watch it or read sites discussing it. Then it goes away and the media moves on to something else to grab your attention. Pretty simple concept. Repeating that you don't like it just shows you're paying attention to it, thus giving it ratings and keeping the cycle going.

Oh I'd love to avoid it completely, I really would. I stopped watching television because of the nonsense they call entertainment. Unfortunately for me, Yahoo doesn't care that I don't care about celebrities or their personal lives so it shows up on my homepage anyway. The news websites don't care that I don't care about celebrities or their personal lives and post articles about them anyway. And now it's here as well. Yippee. Yet somehow it's my fault I'm aware of it?

No worries, next time a thread is posted that asks why something is getting attention from the media I'll be sure to check with you and make sure I can post my opinion and/or answer a question.

reply to post by Emilyh


Uh... yea.

I guess you win.

Reminds me of the story and the media frenzy that erupted when Amy Carter finally found a boyfriend. Oh wait.... Still waiting on that story Just a joke...

This story is nothing more than a distraction and a story to fill air time.

I do find it interesting that she is marrying an evil Wall Street investment banker though. I won't expect to see Obama at the wedding simply because of this little fact.

Let's wait about 10 years to see where this relationship leads politically... Hopefully, we will have all forgotten the Clinton's by then.

I didn't know about it until this thread OP.

So, at least in my case, the answer to your question is ...because you are posting about it.

The price tag for this "royal" wedding?

Two Million Dollars.

I heard this on CNN.

and I just googled this:

Chelsea Clinton's 'Wedding of the Decade' Could Top $2 Million

www.politicsdaily.com...

Start with $100,000 to $200,000 to rent Astor Courts, where workers have been buzzing about for weeks, and more if landscaping and other improvements are required, she said.

The property -- designed in 1902 by famed architect Stanford White for fur and real estate mogul John Jacob Astor IV, who went down on the Titanic -- was on the market for $12 million, but the listing has gone inactive. Does that up the rental fee?

Owners Kathleen Hammer and Arthur Seelbinder, refuse to discuss the house or the alleged wedding. With a reported three caterers working separately on two dinners and cocktail hours, food and drink could run $500,000 to $750,000, said Hanlin.

She calculated that tents would add another $200,000 or more, with a "pretty conservative" $250,000 for flowers. Society bandleader Jimmy Vali, plus up to 25 musicians and singers to cover everything from salsa to Sinatra, could run as high as $40,000.

Don't be surprised by a Bill Clinton saxophone solo, Hanlin says. A good wedding photographer costs from $25,000 to $40,000, with another $25,000 for a videographer. Ka-ching. Ka-ching