Post User Polls

Are Clintons spending too much on wedding?

Chelsea Clinton's wedding in New York state this weekend will reportedly come at a cost of nearly $3-5 million.

Is that too much to spend on any wedding? Weigh in below.

By Cameron Smith  |  July 29, 2010; 7:58 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Who should replace Simon Cowell on American Idol? | Next: Did Ellen deserve to get kicked off American Idol?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



If they can afford it, they should be able to spend whatever they want.

Posted by: DavidTR | July 29, 2010 11:39 PM

I imagine the security would be extra tight. The Clinton's want to keep the press out and who knows, pinkos might show up to protest the new father in law.
The guy was a wall st. banker, who has served time in prison for felony bank fraud. Good friend of the Clinton's btw.
Rich white trash marrying into another rich white trash family. Disgusting.

Posted by: cburbank | July 30, 2010 12:36 AM

It is their money. The additional security needed because of the trash paparazzi is expensive. Besides they are spending some money that helps local businesses (jobs) and local governments (taxes). So what exactly is the complaint?

and cburbank - Your ignorance and bigotry are showing. WWJD?

Posted by: pjohn2 | July 30, 2010 10:19 AM

pjohn2
It's their money?
Probably stolen money.
And how does that young guy afford a $4M condo he and Chelsea are living in before the wedding?

Posted by: secjet1 | July 30, 2010 7:57 PM

Oh, definitely need more money to cover the security but not THAT much!

Posted by: hatsat | July 30, 2010 11:42 PM

If you have ever had any occasion where you needed to ponder which two from the list of 1) Obama, 2) Tony Blair, and 3) Oprah are going to be invited, knowing that the two who make the cut will say yes -- then you will be qualified to make a judgement whether $3M is too much or not.

Until then just go to the nearest grocery store and pick up the US Weekly, and gawk.

Note the fact that the assumption here is that the other 400 or so guests who also make it are more "important" than the one who doesn't make the cut from the above list of three -- whatever the measure of importance is, you've got to agree that *is* impressive.

Posted by: kblgca | July 30, 2010 11:53 PM

The cost, while expensive, is not over the top next to many high-profile formal weddings. Security and finding a venue to insure privacy is not cheap. It is a private affair not financed by taxpayers in any way. The Clintons can afford it, it is their money, who is anyone to question it..it is no one else's business.

Posted by: Frustratededucator | July 30, 2010 11:54 PM

The question posed is worthy of the Enquirer.

Posted by: Observer001 | July 30, 2010 11:55 PM

Vulgar, but what else could be expected of such people?

Posted by: rwb1122 | July 31, 2010 12:15 AM

Yes. If it doesn't last. It would turn into an expensive cheap thrill; but I think these guys have more staying power than that.

Posted by: epespinoza43 | July 31, 2010 12:17 AM

Hey, you can like or hate the Clinton's, but what Dad doesn't want to make his daughter's wedding day as special as he can?

Chelsea Clinton seems to be a good kid. I wish her and her fiance all the best.

Posted by: BEEPEE | July 31, 2010 12:30 AM

Even though I voted, "No, it's not too much", there's a lot of nuance behind that vote. No normal person needs a wedding that expensive -- but she isn't normal. Look at how many people -- including supposed "real media" -- are chasing around trying to find out private details of a private event involving private persons who are in the public eye for reasons other than their own seeking to be in the public eye. They need security and they need secrecy. And, while they're at it, $3-5 mill spent on something as useless as an extravagant wedding ceremony is a great way to get money out of Bill Clinton's bank account and into public circulation. Good news for everybody!

Posted by: ScienceTim | July 31, 2010 12:33 AM

If the wedding costs $3.5M, how much will the divorce cost?

Posted by: Martial | July 31, 2010 12:48 AM

Who cares. We THE PEOPLE don't pay for it.

I just wish the frigging MEDIA would stay out of private affairs.

Posted by: mackiejw | July 31, 2010 1:07 AM

The Clintons can do what they like but it is wise to remember that the amount of money spent on a wedding is often inversely proportional to the amount of time the couple end up staying married.

Posted by: yenta1 | July 31, 2010 2:06 AM

It's their money. How they spend it isn't for us to decide!

Posted by: jnik | July 31, 2010 2:21 AM

It is a match perfect for our time.

She is the daughter of two very powerful and very corrupt politicians.

He works at Goldman Sachs, one of the financial firms that nearly melted down the world's economy.

Together they will be the perfect union of Democratic corruption and Wall Street Greed.

So yes Clintons, so America the kind of wealth that a couple of greedy corrupt politicians can accumulate.

Posted by: krankyman | July 31, 2010 2:32 AM

This whole argument is offensive. First non of anybody's business since its their own money. Second look at it as a patriotic duty for rich people to spend what ever they can to stimulate the local economy, and from the media reports it seems lots of things being sourced are from around the local area... And last for people to think this is tooo much just sounds like sour grapes...

Posted by: rupal96 | July 31, 2010 2:34 AM

Weddings, in most times and most places, have been as extravagant as the parents could afford. Big weddings of wealthy families are a sort of potlach. A ritual exchange of wealth for status. If the families can afford it, I'm all for it. It's definitely good for musicians. Some of the finest musicians I know would have difficulty staying in the middle class without wedding gigs. I played a wedding reception once where the couple (two successful stockbrokers in their 30's) hired five different musical groups. We marveled at the extravagance, but nobody complained.

Posted by: msh41 | July 31, 2010 3:40 AM

I think the general trend in super decadent and ludicrous weddings is vile but eh, if they've got the money, so be it
I wouldn't want such decadence for myself but if others do, then I wish them well. May all those who opt for decadent weddings have a long and happy life together and, hopefully, learn a little modesty.

Posted by: pang5 | July 31, 2010 3:47 AM

I've been advised that "potlach," which I referred to in an earlier post, is an obscure word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlach

Posted by: msh41 | July 31, 2010 3:54 AM

It's mind boggling to me why so many people are concerned about what other people do with their private money. If people think it's okay to question what someone spends on a wedding, then who's to say that people can't also start questioning when someone buys an expensive car, or takes an expensive trip, or gives an expensive gift to their spouse. It's called liberty! It's a slippery slope that eventually will lead to TRUE socialism, where the community decides what someone does and does not really need. Before too long it will be "sorry you shouldn't have that expensive wedding with YOUR money because somebody else needs food stamps."

Posted by: msr0013 | July 31, 2010 4:00 AM

Absolutely none of my business. nor anyone else's, except for narrow minded biddies with nothing better to do. No wonder America is declining.

Posted by: ChrisW1958 | July 31, 2010 4:28 AM

It's not always the question whether they can afford it or not. Clinton's status in the USA,as former president and president candidate and public servants in their past and present positions, must show more sensitivity even if it is the wedding of their one and only daughter.
I wish the young couple happyness and peace of mind as celebrities.

Posted by: seedtech | July 31, 2010 5:35 AM

The Democrats are elitists. All of the transportation, resources, etc. How "green" is this wedding? I do not fault Ms. Clinton for wanting this to be memorable for her and her Fiance'. But it shows what hypocrites the "environmentally concious" are.

Posted by: bobbo2 | July 31, 2010 5:39 AM

It's vulgar and disgusting.

Posted by: uh_huhh | July 31, 2010 5:40 AM

A wedding requires 3 people: a couple to be married, and officiant, and as many witnesses as state law requires. You need the cost of a license and a decent honorarium for the officiant. Any extra persons or expenses is superfluous, for self-gratification. Each also increases the stress involved in what should be a happy stress-free family occasion. Any wedding requiring a director and a rehearsal is out of control and needs to be rethought and downsized. This is not hyperbole. I mean it seriously.

Posted by: sirach | July 31, 2010 5:52 AM

It would have been sweet if they'd just popped into some small town city hall ten minutes before closing time with a solitary witness, gone on a honeymoon in some remote location, and then snail-mailed a one paragraph press release to the media upon their return, if only just to set the tone for the rest of their marriage.

But since they didn't, WHO CARES what they did or how much money they spent? IT'S THEIR LIVES, NOT OURS. I feel kind of dumb even responding to a question like this, but I'm waiting for the water to boil.

Posted by: andym108 | July 31, 2010 6:13 AM

Did you really expect something classy and understated from the Clintons?

Posted by: mlincoln1 | July 31, 2010 6:28 AM

Since when is success, and its trappings, something to be ashamed of? Oh wait...since Obama took office and he says that there's a point where people make too much money.

The Clintons have the money. They can do what they want. Security is an issue. I just hope that the next time liberals trash "rich white Republican Wall-Streeters" that they remember this lavish affair.

And speaking of affairs...its not the expense of this wedding that's offensive. It's the fact that Chelsea and her mother have stood by an alley cat who cheated with an intern.

Posted by: Darlene_Jr | July 31, 2010 6:51 AM

Remember when they were running against the "Decade of Greed"?,,, No other president in history ever used the power of the office for self enrichment as they have. The left lets you get away with anything if they get your vote on abortion,, just look at Ted Kenedy

Posted by: gb1951 | July 31, 2010 6:53 AM

I'm always amazed at how a basically happy story about two people, famous or not, getting married can elicit such ugly remarks. I'd hate to have your life.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | July 31, 2010 6:59 AM

It is there money isn't it? The taxpayers are not contributing so who cares

Posted by: kathymac1 | July 31, 2010 7:11 AM

What an idiotic argument! The cost isn't the business of any of us. And by the way, it is helping that local economy to a significant extent with not only what they are paying for the wedding, but with added tourists too.

As far as the cost goes, we aren't talking about a couple of school crossing guards getting married. These two people have high paying jobs and their parents are now wealthy too. So it's THEIR business and not YOURS!

Posted by: familynet | July 31, 2010 7:13 AM

Who cares. We THE PEOPLE don't pay for it.
I just wish the frigging MEDIA would stay out of private affairs.

Posted by: mackiejw

===========================

Um, excuse me, but yes, you do. Bill Clinton has a Secret Service detail for life, and Hillary Clinton has her own detail, as well as the Diplomatic Security Service, that protects her for as long as she is Secretary of State. Much of this is coming directly out of our pockets, i.e. "Change you can be leavin'".

Posted by: hofbrauhausde | July 31, 2010 7:27 AM

$1,024,000,000,000 and rising for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is that too much? That's our business, not Ms. Clinton's wedding.

Posted by: merrill1 | July 31, 2010 7:32 AM

Bill Clinton has permanent Secret Service protection, Hilary Clinton has security protection at taxpayer expense------that's fine. But their daughter, now that she's an adult does not.

**
Who is paying for the Clinton's security protection (AND ALL OF THEIR GUESTS) while they're at Chelsea's wedding? Us or them? Better not be me since the Clintons didn't ask my permission for Chelsea to get married.
**

Since their daughters wedding is not a "State" function, the Clinton's better be paying for the security. And I do expect to see a real bill for the security marked 'paid in full' accompanied by a legitimate bank-processed check signed by the Clintons.

Posted by: momof20yo | July 31, 2010 7:51 AM

It's an obscene and vulgar amount--having said that, it is their only child, they can obviously afford it, and they will be employing a lot of people this weekend and spreading some of that wealth around....the wedding industry rolls on....

Posted by: kregger | July 31, 2010 8:03 AM

Well, if there weren't literally millions of people that could be helped with that kind of money in poor countries - or that's 100-165 yearly incomes (30,000/ea. for 3-5 million.)

The opulence is disgusting. It's all about me, me, me. The show is what's important - not people.

Posted by: cmecyclist | July 31, 2010 8:03 AM

Now, now folks She and Mommy and Daddy are one of you; you don't attack fellow progressives for anything - remember?!

Posted by: sandynh | July 31, 2010 8:06 AM

For a couple that was "so Broke" when they left the WH that people accused them of robbing the place on exit. To buying 4M houses in NY & 3M house in DC (hers) plus his NYC Harlem Office .
Heis a retired president probably making 300k. She is a US Senator making 200K. where is all the $$$ coming from to float this wedding?

Did you earn it on the past Stock market? Or giving speeches? or are "friends" paying for this???

Posted by: digtldesk | July 31, 2010 8:09 AM

How about another statistic?

If you worked for 45 years -

5 million - 111,100 yearly income.

3 million - 66,600 yearly income.

Posted by: cmecyclist | July 31, 2010 8:11 AM

Jenna Bush got married while her father was still president, and there was no media frenzy or non-stop coverage of that event (which, by the way, cost "only" $100,000), unlike Chelsea's wedding, which the media are treating like Princess Diana's wedding.

Gd help us all when the first Obama daughter weds...the media will cover that like it's the second coming of Christ.

Posted by: kregger | July 31, 2010 8:13 AM

Hey, it is their money, which they earned the hard way – not like the clowns on cable television and talk radio.
During these difficult economic times, we should encourage rich people to spend as much of their money as possible, which will trickle down to at least a few poor people. Such spending is essential and we should encourage it.

Posted by: smithjohnson748 | July 31, 2010 8:13 AM

The weddings in general are costing too much. In 32 years, a lot of them will divorce anyway. What's the point?

Posted by: gwshening | July 31, 2010 8:16 AM

Weddings in general are costing too much. In 3 years, most of them will divorce. And in 5 years, they will get another wedding costing as much or more. Americans are spending more on weddings and divorces than they spend on educating themselves.

Silly!

Posted by: gwshening | July 31, 2010 8:21 AM

To paraphrase: "It's Chelsea's party and she can spend if she wants to, spend if she wants to. You would spend, too, if it happened to you."

Seriously, spending 3 million or even 6 million likely means that a lot of people are getting paid a lot of money. It's a redistribution of the wealth. WHO, in this down economy, would have a problem with that?

Good for her and good for the Clintons.

The other view is, it's coming from her dad's pocket. Don't you think after ALL the humiliation that he's put her through, she deserves some payback?

Posted by: drossi2 | July 31, 2010 8:33 AM

Unless I'm being asked to pay for it, I don't care how much anyone's wedding cost. Congrats to the happy couple.

Posted by: kalixmd | July 31, 2010 8:34 AM

Like, who cares? But at least the Clintons are stimulating the local economy.

Posted by: bsimrell | July 31, 2010 8:36 AM

3 million is not a lot for a presidential wedding. It's the Clinton's only daughter and a daughter any one would be proud of, so, let them celebrate her wedding as they see fit. It's their money, not yours or mine so let them spend it. I don't understan why anyone is complaining! The Clintons have worked hard all their lives. They went to good schools, worked hard at their careers, ran for elections and earned honest money. And Bill Clinton's foundation does a lot of good work in Africa, so they are giving back to society

I rejoice with them today. God bless the bride and groom. God bless the happy couples parents too.

Posted by: TTCP | July 31, 2010 8:37 AM

Hmmmm . . .
I wonder what they paid the pastor, without whose words it would not be a wedding. I think of the minister who finally gave up and started to charge ten percent of whatever the bride's dress cost. :)

Posted by: Praytell1 | July 31, 2010 8:43 AM

That's the Clinton's business, not ours. They earned it....and didn't need a government bailout!!!

Posted by: aeaustin | July 31, 2010 8:44 AM

I didn't know the Clintons confirmed this wedding is costing $3 - $5 million. Musta missed that...... The responsible thing to have done would have been to ask the same question without attaching Chelsea's name to it.

Posted by: notsurprised | July 31, 2010 8:44 AM

Where did the money come from? Where did they "earn" that much disposable income as a Senator, Governor and even President? The $3.5M isn't too much, but what products did the Clinton's build to get that kind of money?

Posted by: cr8oncsu | July 31, 2010 8:45 AM

Since so much of the Clinton's wealth came from Chinese hands, will officials from China's government be at the wedding? La-La Land Liberals are happy they have a new, if somewhat soiled, "Camelot".

Posted by: fgoepfert1 | July 31, 2010 8:48 AM

I fully support the ultra-rich stimulating the economy with their with totally frivolous spending.

Posted by: MARBUR | July 31, 2010 8:50 AM

Total waste of money. They'll be divorced within three years.

Posted by: mosthind | July 31, 2010 8:52 AM

It takes a lot of money to make the dog faced girl feel special.

Posted by: edbyronadams | July 31, 2010 8:56 AM

Your estimate as stated of the wedding cost is evidently quite overblown and exaggerated and per the 'knowledgeable experts on the TV news show this Sat. the cost will be under one million. Agree with above it is their and her choice. One more important error written above is that the Groom never served a day in jail nor was convicted of any crime - his father did but not him. Irresponsible comments increase per narrow minded thinking.

Posted by: davidmswyahoocom | July 31, 2010 8:58 AM

Sure, why not?

But a lot of the guests attending are the same pols who crow about class warfare.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | July 31, 2010 8:58 AM

Whose kidding who here the Clinton's aren't paying for any of this. They are mooching off their political pals as usual, those people will get payback sooner or later from Bill or Hillary if she makes the oval office. If not they will write it off to money well spent to grease the democrat machine and will get points that way.

Posted by: LadyChurchillUSA | July 31, 2010 9:18 AM

Clintons are members of the political elite class. In fact, many leading Democrats, like John Kerry, live like royalty. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton urge constant and ever-increasing taxpayer spending on long-held Democratic Party ideas .
But both Clintons have a European upper-class mentality when it comes to their own money and lifestyle. Lavish parties and luxurious furnishings are just part of what they believe come with looking out for the average person.

Posted by: sperrico | July 31, 2010 9:23 AM

Remember when Hillary's brother married Barbara Boxer's daughter? But this is even worse: Chelsea sees nothing amiss in joining a family with a terrible track record in ethics? Oh but he did get into Stanford -- completely merit based of course. Some day when China overtakes us, it will be clear where our "governing elite" went so wrong.

Posted by: DCresident99 | July 31, 2010 9:24 AM

Bill is a likeable guy but lest we forget all the Chinese money he collected while in office. Also the secrets that seemed to make their way from the USA to China during his administration. Yes, the Chinese that have risen to have great control over us since Clinton was elected President. With this in mind I don't know if one can say that's it's the Clinton's money.

Posted by: AForgottenMan | July 31, 2010 9:29 AM

Are the news organizations, press, tv, etc. paying their "sources" for the rumors they then spread about costs of this wedding? Perhaps, after all is done, there will be a Freedom of Information filed so that the Wash. Post can then get the real cost and checks written ..Front Page Expo?

Posted by: judithclaire1939 | July 31, 2010 9:37 AM

I've never been a Clinton fan, but it's nobody's business how much they spend on the wedding. Think positive: The $3M has to be spent on something - either products or services- money that provides jobs to people and provides them with income that they can spend elsewhere. The best form of "stimulus" that I can think of.

Posted by: txoh | July 31, 2010 9:40 AM

Stimulating the Economy? This is just the rich paying the rich for their services.

-

"The $3.5M isn't too much,....

Posted by: cr8oncsu | July 31, 2010 8:45 AM"

If 3.5 million isn't too much, perhaps you can "loan" me a few hundred thou?

Posted by: cmecyclist | July 31, 2010 9:43 AM

First of all, it's the Clintons' money.

Second, one suspects a hefty portion of the funds expended will be for security, in no small part to assure the howling mob of media is kept at a distance.

Miss Clinton seems to be one who avoids the media as best she can. For that alone she's to be commended.

Posted by: rmlwj1 | July 31, 2010 9:46 AM

Call it the Clinton stimulus plan!!!!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | July 31, 2010 9:53 AM

Hey I am not going to complain about a pile of money like that coming the way of an awful lot of small & medium sized businesses. If they are happy with doing it, and can afford it, then everyone wins.

Posted by: Nymous | July 31, 2010 9:56 AM

Curious how that compares to how much was spent for security for Jenna Bush's wedding. The Clinton's don't have a 1,600 acre ranch that needs to be guarded.

Posted by: dlpetersdc | July 31, 2010 10:00 AM

Good for the local businesses that get the largess coming from this gala... but it's the opposite of the kind of wedding I would want for myself, at least.

This spectacle is launching their little girl into the world via this shindig. It's a media extravaganza not much different from the academy awards, but all the Oscars end up going home with Chelsea and her parents. Publicity- and spotlight-obsessed parents!

Posted by: Zino | July 31, 2010 10:04 AM

How about a choice of "It's none of our business?" Or "Why would anyone care?"

Posted by: MNUSA | July 31, 2010 10:09 AM

Now, let's see which Bridesmaid Good Old Bill yanks into the coat closet..... are there any odds as to which one to bet on? Like horses at a track?

Posted by: JPMcC | July 31, 2010 10:10 AM

They should have eloped in Vegas. They could have hired an Elvis impersonator if they wanted to splurge on the music.

Posted by: Jihm | July 31, 2010 10:14 AM

Two words: ostentatious and disgusting. With all the economic suffering and raping of our treasury we must be witness, and the print media like whores, will circle and gorge themselves on the event and detail the Clintons...money wasted.

Posted by: esparza | July 31, 2010 10:27 AM

being male I never saw the sense in spending much for a wedding. However if they were not public figures it would be a lot less.

Posted by: chet_brewer | July 31, 2010 10:29 AM

It is their only daughter and they can certainly afford it. Good for them!!!!!

Posted by: cmstraub37 | July 31, 2010 10:31 AM

Best wishes to the kids.

Posted by: IGiveup1 | July 31, 2010 10:32 AM

They are real trash. The only reason they seem better in hindsight is because of Flight Suit Boy and his hideous regime.

Posted by: mitt1968 | July 31, 2010 10:34 AM

I see the right wing nutjobs out in droves today, complaining about everything. First of all just because Clinton's get state paid security is not contingent upon them giving up their private lives. So you nutjobs shut up on that count. Lastly what is it to you how they spend their money hard earned or not. It is in their bank account. For all those pond scum who claim they must have stolen it, even if, as long as it is in their hands they can spend as they like. If it i stolen, you go ahead and start making a case to prosecute them. Otherwise shut your filthy traps.

Posted by: Secular | July 31, 2010 10:35 AM

It's a lot of money when you consider the fact that they will most likely be divorced eventually, they will look back on this expense themselves and realize it was a mistake.

Posted by: Dr_b_ | July 31, 2010 10:36 AM

A truly disgusting and hypocritical waste of money by what I now consider a white-trash family, who became part of America's monied aristocracy mainly by dumb luck and have piously mouthed their sympathy toward the less fortunate to get ahead politically.

They would make perfect Republicans.

May their futures bring them what they deserve!

Posted by: YondCassius | July 31, 2010 10:40 AM

1. Who said the wedding is going to cost the amount cited?
2. What business is it of ours? The Clintons did absolutely NOTHING to encourage this publicity.
3. I guess if one does not have a 1600-acre ranch to hold a wedding, one has to hire/rent various venues to hold the festivities. So I guess if one OWNS a 1600-ACRE ranch, paid for by a doesn't-pass-the-smell-test payoff from a professional sports team, one is above criticism?
4. refer to #2 - let these girls get married without criticism and wish them well!

Posted by: mhd51 | July 31, 2010 10:46 AM

"God help us all when the first Obama daughter weds...the media will cover that like it's the second coming of Christ.

Posted by: kregger | July 31, 2010 8:13 AM"

I think this poster meant the "third" coming; the second was in January, 2009, according to the MSM.

Posted by: stvcar | July 31, 2010 10:49 AM

People magazine addressed the cost rumors. The article stated the wedding costs in the six figures. WaPo, get your facts straight.

Posted by: syvetteavery | July 31, 2010 10:51 AM

Probably too much for most folks, but the Clinton leeches are probably using other peoples' money.
They are vacuous shills with no morals whatsoever.

Posted by: LarryG62 | July 31, 2010 10:54 AM

I thought democrats were the champions of the poor. How many poor and homeless this money would have helped. Corrupt facades. I will vote republican this year for sure.

Posted by: FromNorthernVA | July 31, 2010 10:54 AM

I view the Clintons' wealth as ill-gotten. And if the investment banker son-in-law is paying for this extravaganza, that kind of money is by definition ill-gotten (no matter who his mother is).

But since 2008 I've had no respect for either Chelsea Clinton or her parents anyway, so none of this is surprising.

Posted by: Itzajob | July 31, 2010 10:55 AM

If it is not YOUR money the Clintons are spending.....what the F.UCK matters to you...or anyone else for that matter?

Posted by: analyst72 | July 31, 2010 10:59 AM

Unless someone else is paying for the wedding, it's nobody's business but the Clintons

Posted by: pmr4419 | July 31, 2010 10:59 AM

Gotta love these polls guaranteed to polarize and generate clicks. Feel stupider just for wading in.

Posted by: gfriday | July 31, 2010 11:03 AM

Dare I say it?
IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS.
I guarantee you that if I had the kind of $ her parents have, and I put her through 8 years of turmoil in the white house, it would be the least I could do. Actually they both owe her more than that.

Posted by: tmcproductions2004 | July 31, 2010 11:05 AM

Envious people always critizize what they can not have. Poor people are the ones who usually complain about lavish weddings. They are also the ones who probably post jealous comments disparaging the former first family. Let Chelsea enjoy her day no matter what the amount.

Posted by: shalshah | July 31, 2010 11:06 AM

"The question posed is worthy of the Enquirer"

My thoughts exactly. It's the Clinton's business and the figure is probably exaggerated. I don't care how much they spend.

Why these silly polls? I hadn't noticed them until today and don't intend to look at them again. I'm going back to the real news.

Posted by: faithfulreader | July 31, 2010 11:14 AM

Given that approx 75% of all relationships that begin in cohabitation before marriage end in divorce, this is $3 million spent on a relationship that marital research shows will probably end w/in 3-5 years. Here's hoping the couple realizes the gravity of the odds that are against their marital success and poractively seeks the counseling and wisdom that will keep them together. The $3 million won't do that!

Posted by: RedskinsReverend | July 31, 2010 11:16 AM

The Clintons are all about money. After all the nouveau riche hillbillies from Arkansas have to show that they have made it. As for Chelsea, it's the Hedge fund daughter marrying the Goldman Saks groom whose father is in jail. How appropriate for the Clintons who skirted just above the law for years !!!!

Posted by: Nancianne | July 31, 2010 11:20 AM

Talk about a nouveau riche wedding! How insensitive of the Clintons to throw their money around in such dismal economic times. I find it disgraceful. They are acting like some kind of decadent royalty.Where are we anyway? On the Saudi peninsula?
As for the lackluster Chelsea, well, she probably figures this is her only time to shine. It's too bad she couldn't have chose a more worthwhile enterprise in which to shine, like a serious humanitarian endeavor.

Posted by: annachris55 | July 31, 2010 11:20 AM

The next time Bill Clinton appears on TV asking for Americans to give more money to Haiti earthquake relief, remember the $250,000 he spent on flowers for his daughter's wedding. Also remember the $780,000 catering bill, the $20,000 for air conditioned porta potties, the $600,000 for tents, and the $250,000 for security. Oh, yes, and what about that exclusive Vera Wang dress said to cost at least $100,000. It certainly is his money, but I for one will not react positively when he appears on TV now asking for donations to feed, clothe, and provide housing and running water for impoverished Haitians who have been left with nothing. Bush spent $100,000 on the wedding of his daughter Jenna.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | July 31, 2010 11:21 AM

While the Clintons have profited handsomely since their WH years, I doubt all of the funds for the wedding come from them. It's not the way the Clintons or other politicians operate.

There is a waiting list of favor seekers who will spend almost any amount to curry favor in the expectation of government (taxpayers) largesse.

The Clintons' extravagence is really our extravegence, until we decide to clean it up.

Posted by: corkyboyd1 | July 31, 2010 11:28 AM

good luck to the couple...I'll suggest to them not to read the threads or they'll get sick of the negativity. People are sounding more and more like losers every day. Not one single comment is positive. Is there anyone out there with a positive outlook in life? Can't we be civilized?

Posted by: snl626 | July 31, 2010 11:32 AM

Wait...isn't this the Washington Post? It's like I've stumbled onto the NY Post site by mistake...

Posted by: santuccir | July 31, 2010 11:53 AM

No one needs $500.000 worth of flowers

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | July 31, 2010 11:58 AM

From everything I have ever heard of Ms. Clinton, she has been a daughter that any parent would be proud of. The Clintons can afford to give her a lavish wedding, she is their only child. In addition, they are contributing greatly to the local economy of the area by providing jobs. It is a win win situation for everyone. I wish Ms. Clinton much happiness and a very successful marriage. She should be left alone, she is a private citizen.

Posted by: Listening2 | July 31, 2010 12:00 PM

Chelsea Clinton has been an exceptionally well-behaved and productive child of the White House, considering her parents silly behavior at times. Hope she has a glorious day, a beautiful intrafaith wedding with every happiness attached. Its a contribution to the economy is she spends big bucks. Some caterer and florist are estatic.

Posted by: drzimmern1 | July 31, 2010 12:01 PM

It might be too much if the figure were true.
This is just mere speculation.
Inside sources on another site say the figure is more likely about $600,000. That seems about right for a wealthy couple who both work and have high paying salries. Of course, the Clintons have earned much from their books and speaking fees etc.
I've always liked Chelsea cuz she never sought the limelight.

Posted by: mikepost1 | July 31, 2010 12:01 PM

I am saddened by such extravagance, especially at a time of economic crisis in this country. We all love our children and we all have a right to spend our own money. But to spend so excessively on Chelsea's wedding is a repudiation of much of what Bill and Hilary Clinton have claimed to represent throughout their public service: a dislike of greed and great economic disparities, and a commitment to a more socially just and equitable society. Weddings are happy occasions, but the sum spent on this one makes it morally tawdry.

Posted by: orray | July 31, 2010 12:03 PM

Public Servants are paid Well?

Posted by: theaz | July 31, 2010 12:03 PM

What about the poor people? Wouldn't this money be better spent helping the poor?

Typical liberal Democrat hypocrisy: lecture the country on the virtues of selflessness and then indulge yourself on your only child's wedding day to the tune of $3 million. Sounds like something a Wall Street tycoon might do. I'm guessing they'll be no press there to watch Bill light his cigar with a Benjamin. Hopefully Charlie Rangel and Tim Geitner will be there to help them avoid next year's tax bill so they can pay for this. Better yet, maybe some stimulus money can be found. It doesn't seem to be doing anybody else any good.

Posted by: maxtel1910 | July 31, 2010 12:13 PM

Its crass and unbecoming to so conspicuously flaunt when joblessness and homelessness is rife.
But they don't care do they?

Posted by: qualquan | July 31, 2010 12:15 PM

am saddened by such extravagance, especially at a time of economic crisis in this country. We all love our children and we all have a right to spend our own money. But to spend so excessively on Chelsea's wedding is a repudiation of much of what Bill and Hilary Clinton have claimed to represent throughout their public service: a dislike of greed and great economic disparities, and a commitment to a more socially just and equitable society. Weddings are happy occasions, but the sum spent on this one makes it morally tawdry.
Posted by: orray
=================================

That needed to be reposted.
What would you expect from the Clintons?
Rich white trash, sorry the comparision can't be ignored.
And the question that begs an answer, how could a young guy, who's father spent years in prison for banking fraud,
afford a $4M condo in NY?
Where did he get the money?

Posted by: secjet1 | July 31, 2010 12:18 PM

One further question:

Would your answer be any different if this were the daughter of George W. Bush? Or, for that matter, Bob Dole, John McCain, etc.?

I don't care what it costs, it's none of my business. As long as the monies provided were obtained legally and it's not at taxpayer expense, what business is it of ours? Besides, shouldn't SOMEONE be spending like crazy in this "down" economy? Who better than a couple of the folks personally responsible (indirectly to semi-directly) for the real-estate "bubble" and the financial crisis that instigated the current recession? And it's voluntary, as opposed to a big fine, tax bill, or seizure.....

Posted by: LNER4472 | July 31, 2010 12:24 PM

White Trash, not knowing what to do with their money always defult to the flashy, showy ways to try to be "equal" to royalty.
We made them what they are - hope they're happy :-)

Posted by: thornegp2626 | July 31, 2010 12:43 PM

Three million is too much to spend if you 50,000 but if you have 3 billion, three million may be not enough.

Posted by: Kingofkings1 | July 31, 2010 12:45 PM

Bush's daughter got married in Crawford, TX in a modest ceremony at the ranch that was estimated to cost about $100,000.

Clinton takes over the tony town of Rhinebeck in an affair that is estimated to cost between $3 and $5 million. As a portion of each man's net worth, the weddings are probably on par.

What I don't get is how Bush is perceived to be the fat cat and Clinton is the common guy. Besides, everyone knows that mob weddings are the most fun.

Posted by: ADNova | July 31, 2010 1:02 PM

I think chelsea posess a high value & money is not worth her goodness. On the other hand, spending a lot of money for a wedding by family Clinton is an amazing event, unless the event bring more advanage than the spent money. The image of Bill and Hillary in public's eyes will not be damaged a lot, because the public's opinion about someone will not be built up by one event. I guess they know what they are doning. Good luck for chelsea.

Posted by: jamesamil25 | July 31, 2010 1:06 PM

Three million is too much to spend if you have 50,000. But if you have 3 billion, three million may be not enough.

Posted by: Kingofkings1 | July 31, 2010 1:17 PM

what a family spends on the wedding of their only daughter is NONE OF YOUR D ___N business.
this couple has tried to have a private affair for family and friends, not the frothing at the mouth intrusive media.
go the palin wedding,where the low class po white trash exposes themselves, literally for attention and $.
leave this young couple alone, and wish them well,you were not invited.
i like their old fashioned values, marriage first, before baby and carriage.

Posted by: ninnafaye | July 31, 2010 1:21 PM

Egregious!!!

Posted by: jak_deth | July 31, 2010 1:22 PM

Bill was a great Pres and Hillary is OK, but like most politicians they have gone from being simple people to thinking that they deserve to live like royalty. C'mon guys, a wedding is not worth this type of expense, especially when the parents are supposed to be out there fighting for the little guy

Posted by: motownmexico | July 31, 2010 1:25 PM

There used to be such a thing as real class....

Posted by: DCresident99 | July 31, 2010 1:27 PM

The Clintons are the epitome of people who have spent their adult lives at the public teat.

If taxpayer money is not involved directly in this wedding, it is certainly there implicitly.

What do we expect from them, really?

Posted by: aghastinsantafe | July 31, 2010 1:28 PM

Obscene!

Posted by: lufrank1 | July 31, 2010 1:33 PM

...... and I remember when George Bush's daughter got married at the ranch in Crawford and that wedding cost $100,000 and the folks on the left called it excessive..There has always been this horrible double standard... I realize that the Clintons are part of the Elite Progressive movement and as such deserve to have the finest plus some but in this environment I'm not sure it will play all that well with their poorer and minority ardent and committed voters...

Posted by: james_m_reilly1 | July 31, 2010 1:36 PM

Who the F cares about this wedding other than the media? I remember in 80s when we as country would look down our nose at the British tabloid media and how they obssessed over the Royal family. Now, to my horror-I can't stop hearing about this damn wedding. What's so special-Is she as sexy as a Kardashian? As pretty as M.Fox? As notorious as Lohan,Hilton or Reid? Nope, so why all the attention?

Posted by: ArmchairGM | July 31, 2010 1:47 PM

I think it is fabulous that the Clintons can afford to celebrate their daughter in this manner. I assume that Hillary also has ample funds to pay down her campaign debt.

Posted by: yeswecan3 | July 31, 2010 1:56 PM

The 2 million dollar affair at the billionaire estate, is something all of the Clintons should know better than.
Totally wrong signal for anybody in the Progressive movement, with millions of Americans down and out.

Justice Of Peace, Chelsea - get over self...

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | July 31, 2010 1:57 PM

Do any of the fools commenting here realize that people spending money they would otherwise keep creates jobs?

Posted by: SWFang | July 31, 2010 2:00 PM

The question wasn't whether this should be a free country and whether people should spend their money as they wish. The question asks what we think of their decision and, let's be real, their values in spending all this dough in such a frivolous way. Libs and neocons seem to agree: Not much.

Posted by: paulkp | July 31, 2010 2:16 PM

$3-5 million? Big deal. Irene Marcos easily spent ten times that on her wedding. Costs included beautifying everything that the entourage was to pass through. Now don't ask where all that money came from...

Posted by: kuko_ako | July 31, 2010 2:20 PM

it's an obscene amount, whether you're Chelsea Clinton or Rush Limbaugh ...

Posted by: fendertweed | July 31, 2010 2:48 PM

Another BS question by the Wapo designed to keep us yelling at each other and looking at their ads. The obvious answer is, if it's coming out of her pocket and not ours, and she earned it honestly, then it's her business and none of ours how she spends it. Blow it on Barbie dolls. Pig out on Ben and Jerry's. Give to the Rex Foundation. What part of "no one tells you how to spend your money, so buzz off" escapes you?

Posted by: treetopflyer | July 31, 2010 2:54 PM

What gimcracks will appear at the wedding?

Posted by: Martial | July 31, 2010 2:58 PM

Not a Clinton supporter, but come on, folks: they are wealthy, and people who are wealthy spend money that keeps other people working. She seems to be a lovely, poised young woman who has somehow escaped the tawdry and undignified "sins of the father", and I hope she has a long and happy marriage.

Posted by: SavingGrace | July 31, 2010 3:14 PM

Sadly, seeing this kind of expenditure on a wedding is a sign of the extent of our class divisions in the country -- even more so when it from a recent Democratic president. Chelsea was a wonderful student, but Cheasea works for a hedge fund now ... and is marrying an investiment bank. I still like the Clintons on the whole, but in the wedding and Chelsea's choice of career and husband -- all around you see some signs of what's wrong with our nation.

Posted by: Senavifan | July 31, 2010 3:34 PM

After all the garbage the Clinton's put Chelsea through, they owe her. Mind you this is coming from a person who despises her parents.

Posted by: Jsuf | July 31, 2010 3:36 PM

Let them enjoy their big day! Bill should also celebrate. After all, history now shows he was America's best President in recent times, the last 25 years.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | July 31, 2010 3:44 PM

Yeah, $3 to 5 million is an obscene amount of money to spend on a wedding, but on the other hand, it's terrific for the economy of Rhinebeck, NY. It'll probably keep a few businesses there from going under. Do I wish they had instead donated the money to Doctors Without Borders? Sure, but it's their money, not mine. I wish them many blessings.

Posted by: philamara1 | July 31, 2010 4:08 PM

Yes, true they can spend whatever they want or can afford. However, the Clinton's are very much a public family in this country and they should expect criticism of such an obscene amount of money being spent on this wedding with the country suffering as it is. Iam sure it is difficult to watch or hear about by the millions of unemployed who barely got an extension of benefits from the government and things are not looking up any better.

Just not a good time to throw such a extravagant wedding with the way things are.

Posted by: johnse63 | July 31, 2010 4:15 PM

Why not? All the time, people are always buying the kind of Wedding Day they want & can afford. It's their money. Who am I to say how the Clintons should spend their money? It's their only child and she's been a well behaved, healthily ambitious child from what I can see. Why shouldn't they be able to buy the kind of wedding they would want.

And BTW, yeah, imagine the Security??? Popular, former President, and sitting Secretary of State? And that's just the Bride's side of the family!

Best Wishes Chelsea & new hubby Marc! Many of us are cheering for you & your hubby's forever happiness, and long-standing marriage!

Love your parents also Chelsea!!

Posted by: playnhavefun | July 31, 2010 4:21 PM

So what? If they have the money, and want to spend it on their daughter, it is no concern of yours or mine.

Posted by: jfl3rd | July 31, 2010 4:36 PM

I don't think how much they spend for a marriage is not an issue at all, as long as its not tax payers money.

I think it should not be even a topic for discussion, how much Clinton's spend for their daughter's marriage.

It's no one's business to comment!

Congratulations Chelsey...Happy married life.

Posted by: raj_bags | July 31, 2010 4:46 PM

wapo ran a short mention in the last week or so that Bill was calling for doners to pay off Hill's pres election costs. These people are owed & have not been paid in all this time. And now the clintons can spend $3-5mil on a wedding. I guess the rich & crooked can stiff anyone with impunity. Chelsea seems like a nice women, but is probably just as crooked as her parents and new husband.

Posted by: floridanco | July 31, 2010 4:48 PM

@raj_bags: Well said. Nothing could be more accurate.

I didn't vote because neither option reflects my real opinion, which is that it's nobody's business how much ANYONE spends on a wedding. And, since I'm here typing, it should be evident I wasn't invited, so I don't really care.

Posted by: bucinka8 | July 31, 2010 4:53 PM

The Clinton's are doing what the corporations are not doing. They are doing good for the economy.

Posted by: paultaylor1 | July 31, 2010 5:36 PM

You need a third option on your poll: WHO CARES?

Posted by: EKruse | July 31, 2010 5:40 PM

Gotta love the Democrats, they represent the little people, but they sure don't live like them.

Posted by: suesue2 | July 31, 2010 5:48 PM

I have lived in Chappaqua for 30 years. No one ever heard of the Town of New Castle, NY (Chappaqua) before the Clinton's moved here. Although I am conservative and a Republican, I do like and admire the Clinton's. Especially Bill. He is a charming person even though I disagree with his underlying political philosophy.
I wish Chelsea the best of luck in her married life. I wish that Hillary had been elected President rather than the inexperienced Obama.

Posted by: nychap44 | July 31, 2010 5:48 PM

Oh for heaven's sake, let the girl have her wedding. We don't need to do polls on who should be allowed to get married or what they should be allowed to spend. When I can afford a $3 million wedding (and find someone interested in walking down the block with me, never mind the aisle,) I don't want you all voting on that either.

Posted by: Larryman | July 31, 2010 6:02 PM

"The question asks what we think of their decision and, let's be real, their values in spending all this dough in such a frivolous way"

Who decides that it is frivolous? My wedding day was the highlight of my life and the memories will last a lifetime.

I'm guessing they are more likely to be serving surf-n-turf than rubber chicken. And to have live music rather than a DJ. And paying for the accommodations for their guests rather than blocking out a segment of rooms that the guests pay for themselves.

They may be having a wedding similar to most with more expensive food, entertaiment, etc.

At least they aren't having a destination wedding where another country would benefit from all the money being put into the local economy.

Posted by: anonmom | July 31, 2010 6:03 PM

And most of the money spent on wedding's goes into the pockets of working people. It's the Rhinebeck Stimulus. Go for it.

Posted by: Larryman | July 31, 2010 6:05 PM

This is a ridiculous question and the fact that the majority of people responding think it is too much money to spend on a wedding shows the stupidity of the masses.

First, it is none of our business. Second, when questions about what is too much or too little to spend on TVs, in-car stereos, and a dinner at a very exclusive restaurant are asked of everyone then perhaps questioning how much someone spends on a wedding might be appropriate.

Those responding perhaps the same individual getting his or her kicks have absolutely no detailed information from which to make their judgement.

The next time someone asks what is wrong with America you can now point to this poll in addition to Fox News/News Corp/Rupert Murdoch.

Posted by: garryh | July 31, 2010 6:08 PM

This is a question that concerns Bill and Hillary only, since they likely are paying for it. It's nobody else's business, quite frankly.

Posted by: vscribe | July 31, 2010 6:10 PM

This is a ridiculous question and the fact that the majority of people responding think it is too much money to spend on a wedding shows the stupidity of the masses.

First, it is none of our business. Second, when questions about what is too much or too little to spend on TVs, in-car stereos, and a dinner at a very exclusive restaurant are asked of everyone then perhaps questioning how much someone spends on a wedding might be appropriate.

Those responding perhaps the same individual getting his or her kicks have absolutely no detailed information from which to make their judgement.

The next time someone asks what is wrong with America you can now point to this poll in addition to Fox News/News Corp/Rupert Murdoch.

Posted by: garryh | July 31, 2010 6:10 PM

She's done nothing wrong in her life. It's not her fault her parents are wealthy. I wish them happiness, as all should of a newly married couple. Even money doesn't make that endeavor easier.

Posted by: drc231 | July 31, 2010 6:16 PM

Personally, I think spending that much on a wedding is obscene. On the other hand, it's really none of my business.

Posted by: nicekid | July 31, 2010 6:29 PM

Jenna Hager (nee Bush) didn't spend this kind of money on her wedding, and her father was still President at the time. If the daughter of the sitting President doesn't need to spend that kind of money for her nuptials, neither does the daughter of the man who hasn't been President for 9 1/2 years. This money is simply about self-aggrandizement for the former President and the Secretary of State. Would Chelsea and Marc have invited Oprah, or a former British Prime Minister (?!?!) if they had been making the invite list? Probably not.

That said, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. Excessive? Yes. Immoral? In a first for the Clintons, no.

Posted by: huguenotklj | July 31, 2010 6:30 PM

Anyone out there know the scoops: what was the Obama, Kennedy, and Gore representation at this spectacle? How about R B Ginsburg and Streisand (remember that love fest?). Alan Greemspan anywhere to be seen? Marc Rich per chance?

Posted by: DCresident99 | July 31, 2010 6:31 PM

This is the Clinton stimulus plan.

Posted by: Doctor_Evil | July 31, 2010 6:38 PM

It is absolutely ridiculous that someone would spend that much money on a wedding, especially when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. It just goes to show that those that have, have it good thanks to Washington. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter because they both steal from hard working Americans. It is disgusting!

Posted by: stackedhi | July 31, 2010 6:44 PM

Bill Clinton must have made out like a bandit by pushing NAFTA. The great sucking sound of Americans' jobs disappearing to other countries masked the quiet swish of money deposited into Bill's pockets as a thank you from big business. The Clintons are dancing and prancing while the country is unemployed - it makes me think of the parties of the Russian nobles while the people are starving outside, as depicted in "Doctor Zhivago." It's amazing how lucrative it can be to be president, over and above the salary, if one plays one's cards right.

Posted by: RichardHode | July 31, 2010 6:52 PM

If placed under oath, the Clintons probably could not remember where they got the money.

Posted by: johntu | July 31, 2010 6:59 PM

While anyone should spend as much on a wedding as they want, as long as it is their own hard-earned money. Surely nobody in the local economy will complain about the up-tick in spending from the Clintons.

However, I suppose the irony here is that the Clintons have appeared to publicly support political and economic equality (by endorsing democratic ideals) but surely they have not demonstrated the same devotions to these ideals it in their own daughter's wedding by spending so lavishly.

3-5 Million is a lot of money in anyone's pocketbook. To provide some perspective 3-5 million (after tax) is the total salary equivalent of 102-170 average Americans for an entire year. Or another way of looking at it is that that is (again after tax) the total value of 25-43 average U.S. homes.

For a democrat to be seen spending what could have been the full year salaries for 102-170 average Americans or the full price of 25-43 average U.S. homes seems a spectacle that might be seen as highly lavish.

I suppose this wedding simply demonstrates that political ideals are intended for the masses to live but the elite to largely ignore. When it comes to real politics I suppose politicians seem to support the idea of political and economic equality for other people while they act very contrary to that genuine idea.

Posted by: theartistpoet | July 31, 2010 7:05 PM

wtf do you care how much they spend on her wedding? are they spending YOUR $3MM??? didn't think so. so why don't you get a grip.

Posted by: cg24820001 | July 31, 2010 7:05 PM

Nothing like a Clampett family hoe-down. Best wishes to Ellie Mae. Lez jez hope somebody welds Cousin Bubba's zipper in the full upright and locked position, and assigns him unimpeachable (get it?) chaperones for the weekend.

Posted by: thebump | July 31, 2010 7:07 PM

Making this into a Princess Di event by US media is what is disgusting.

Posted by: Elisa2 | July 31, 2010 7:09 PM

I don't want to confer with Washington Post readers before spending my money, the Clinton's should have to either!

Posted by: SaysEye | July 31, 2010 7:22 PM

wtf do you care how much they spend on her wedding? are they spending YOUR $3MM??? didn't think so. so why don't you get a grip.
Posted by: cg24820001
===============================
Because the Clinton's are such hypocrits.
How many families could this money have helped in Haiti?
Hillbilly neveau riche wannabees. It's crass, it's disgusting and shows that Chelsea is a spoiled rich brat.

Jenna's wedding was much more classy and she married a decent man.
BTW don't you think the Clinton's would have some shame, the guy Chelsea is marrying is the son of a banking felon (someone the Clinton's love to demonize).
And where did this young guy get the $$ to buy a $4M condo for him and Chelsea to shack up in before the wedding?
Something stinks here. Is his daddy footing the bill with money from Swiss banks? Wouldn't doubt it.
People are broke and praying for extensions of UI checks while these hill billy white trash splurge obscenely on this?

Posted by: vickie1 | July 31, 2010 7:22 PM

So where did the money come from

Posted by: vaders1 | July 31, 2010 7:23 PM

WaPo poll questions remind me of questions we use to pass around in grade school. Do you like me? ___Yes ___No.

You would think these questions would be a little more in depth.

Posted by: rlj1 | July 31, 2010 7:30 PM

This question is a classic case of Media disconnect. While American service personnel are dying in Afghanistan, the Post wastes time obsessing over well heeled people spending lots of money on their only child's wedding.

This cultural contradiction reminds me of the 60's movie "Mondo Cane". Look that up on Google or Wikipedia.

Posted by: MillPond2 | July 31, 2010 7:47 PM

First of all it is none of anyone's business how much she spent. If the Clinton's have it go for it. The way I look at it she created some jobs in that town. The town needs to enjoy the income that came from the wedding.

Posted by: bigjohnbfmc | July 31, 2010 7:56 PM

I don't think parents of the Bride ever, ever have control over what various private enterprises will charge for weddings:

A marriage license is the same cost for the rich as for the very poor. Food, privacy, places to dress for the occasion, hair, dress, bridesmaids, numbers, food, security, everything else is not priced by the parents, its priced by the businesses providing such services.

The more something matters, the more you will pay to have it.

Posted by: dutchess2 | July 31, 2010 8:02 PM

You Repugnants are judging when there was that defense contractor during the Bush years who spent TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS on a Sweet Sixteen party???? That was the one where Fiddy Cent, Stevie Nicks, and Michael Bolton were brought in for the music????

The Clintons, in comparison to the Repugnants, are fiscal conservatives!

Posted by: bs2004 | July 31, 2010 8:16 PM

I makes more sense than spending all that money on stupid campaign ads. Imagine the money that is spent on both sides of the political landscape. It's obscene. Weddings are private and they can do whatever they want.

Posted by: tuttlegroup | July 31, 2010 8:25 PM

I don't know which is worse, a set of parents who would spend that much on a wedding or a daughter who would let them do it. And Republicans say that taxes are too low on wealthy people?

Posted by: stillaliberal | July 31, 2010 8:27 PM

These young people could have gotten married in the Clinton's or Mezvinsky's back yard, and donated $3M to help those screwed by Clinton/Rubin (repeal of Glass- Steagall,Commodities Futures Modernization Act, etc. ad nauseam).

The bride's parents are the same people who appealed to the public to pay his legal fees and her campaign expenses (because she just couldn't get off the trail).

Why don't wealthy and famous people have their garish weddings in stadiums, invite the public and have the proceeds go to charity?

At this time in American history? A $3M wedding!!!? NO. Ever? NO!

Posted by: subscriptionsinbox | July 31, 2010 8:31 PM

For 3 mill Chelsea should have gotten a new face for the wedding.

Posted by: dashriprock | July 31, 2010 8:35 PM

Chump change when it comes to uniting two among the foremost families of grifters in the nation.

Posted by: slim2 | July 31, 2010 9:05 PM

I have to be polite, so I will be.

What the !@#$%^!@#$%^@#$%^&*()@#$%^& business is it of yours to comment on how a family decides to spend its money?

Posted by: DaveinNorthridge | July 31, 2010 9:21 PM


the hypocrisy of liberals never ceases to amaze...but why osama obmaa didn't impose a 39.6% wedding tax escapes me

Posted by: michaelhunt277 | July 31, 2010 9:29 PM

This is nobodies business but the bride and groom. This question should not have been asked in a serious newspaper.

Posted by: lswonder | July 31, 2010 9:34 PM

I've read that the figure is nowhere close to $3 million. These numbers were based on guesstimates like $20,000 for a Vera Wang dress. For celebrity weddings, designers give away their dresses because they can't buy this kind of publicity. With their connections, the Clintons have probably gotten huge discounts, and another celebrity mag (People) has reported that it's more in the range of 100,000s rather than millions. Still way more than necessary but nowhere near the ridiculous figures being bandied about.

Posted by: Sailing6Seas | July 31, 2010 9:34 PM

$3-5 million going from the pockets of the wealthy Clintons into the pockets of working people. What's not to like?

Posted by: da1123 | July 31, 2010 9:49 PM

Wow!

Posted by: drfields | July 31, 2010 9:55 PM

Sorry, I'm not a lib totalitarian. People can spend their money how they like. Hope she had a very nice wedding. Congrats to the couple.

Posted by: illogicbuster | July 31, 2010 9:55 PM

Opulence....I has it

Posted by: vze4psch | July 31, 2010 10:01 PM

Just another freak show brought to you by the Clintons.

Posted by: Phil5 | July 31, 2010 10:04 PM

The only white trash here are the Repugnants who don't have any class, but what else would you expect from idiot Republicans? Those idiots would rather salivate over the Wasilla hillbillies.

Posted by: missgrundy | July 31, 2010 10:27 PM

No, it's not too much! I don't even remotely approach such wealth, but I am sick and tired of all this anti-capitalist rhetoric since Obama has been in office. DUMP OBAMA! BRING BACK THE CAPITALIST REPUBLICANS. The wonderful thing about this country is that you can made as much money as you want. Now, if we get the Republicans back in office. then WE CAN KEEP OUR MONEY!!! Get a job, Democrats!!!

Posted by: georges2 | July 31, 2010 10:27 PM

Hey, Dominoes delivery for that many people? EXPENSIVE!

Seriously, my welding to my ex cost $30k 25 years ago, and I'm nobody. Feeding all those celebrities, security, other logistics, what should it cost? Who cares if they have the dough? Love the righties/Clinton haters complaining here, like their crowd shows fiscal restrain in their private lives.....

Posted by: tjconnor | July 31, 2010 10:34 PM

Whether it is Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or some above-average person, their choice to spend one dollar or five-million dollars, is their choice, so long as the money was earned in good faith.

One of the major problems I am seeing in the US, is the way that people, who may be lacking money, also lack the incentivization to succeed. They believe that ostracizing or trying to take down an individual, who has accrued wealth is ctegorized as nothing short of "evil" and that wealth that was earned, should be taken for the benefit of others.

This wedding shows that people, who have money, DO PAY FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, which in turn, results in JOBS AND INCOME TAX AND OTHER TYPES OF REVENUE, e.g., sales taxes, FICA, gasoline taxes, etc.

Taxing the people, even more, results in less spending, which results in less jobs and wealth creation. Forget my opinion for the moment, ask Ben Bernanke. (Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini are two morons to draw to and like a busted clock, is right only twice a day.)

Thank you Democrats, President Obama and all of the Obummer-Nutzi's who disdain other people's successes and don't know jack about economics. Simply stated, how much money is in my pocket, to support MY family, is the "happiness factor."

Bill Clinton demonstrated what money does for our economy, something the Obama Administration and the current session of Congress hasn't a clue about!!!

We'll remember in November!!!!

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | July 31, 2010 10:38 PM

This is an absurd, classless family who because of the times which celebrates 'Stupid Nasty Housewives of NameTheCity' have somehow become a former President, who will always be known for his insensate affairs, and a Secretary of State, with not two ounces of actual ethics or character between them. And have the further lack of restraint to spend $3 to $5 million on this mating ceremony.

The amazing story is that this family breeding IS a story.

Posted by: JPMcC | July 31, 2010 11:07 PM

It's obviously way too much to spend on a wedding but they would certainly need a lot of security and they have plenty of money so who cares. Leave them alone and congratulations to both of them.

Posted by: sharronkm | July 31, 2010 11:08 PM

Let's change the question asked in the poll to something that people should actually care about:

Do you think that a couple who can afford to spend $3 million on their daughter's wedding should be taxed at a slightly higher rate than a couple who can afford to spend $3,000 ont their daughter's wedding?

Posted by: exco | July 31, 2010 11:20 PM

"We'll remember in November!!!!"

---------------


I think you teabaggers need to prepare yourselves for thing not to turn out as you expect in november (ie, radical righties not taking over).

Posted by: tjconnor | July 31, 2010 11:20 PM

"We'll remember in November!!!!"

--------------

And, no you won't. You'll remember the folks who are best funded, Rep or Dem.

Posted by: tjconnor | July 31, 2010 11:23 PM

How much anyone spends on a wedding is no one's business other than those directly involved.

It is certainly none of my business.

Posted by: watchmaker | July 31, 2010 11:34 PM

Ask me that question when it is my daughter who is getting married. Then it will be my money and my business whether the amount is too much.

Posted by: smartgirl312 | July 31, 2010 11:34 PM

I personally don't see how it's anybody's business but theirs as to how much money they spend on their daughter's wedding.

Posted by: gitouttahere | August 1, 2010 2:28 AM

In those photos, I saw State troopers. I'm sure there were also plenty of Secret Service officers and other unmarked police cars around.

How much did all of that 'security' add to the wedding expenses? How much of those expenses got billed to the American taxpayers, and not directly to the Clintons?


Maybe the Clintons COULD afford a big wedding for Chelsea when they knew someone other than themselves would be paying for it. It's always easier and more fun to spend someone else's money.

Posted by: momof20yo | August 1, 2010 8:53 AM

Here's more evidence of the growing inequality between the rich and poor which continues to increasing yearly in the U.S. The U.S. now has the highest income inequality in the developed world and we are moving towards being on the same level as Mexico according to the OECD.
As more middle class Americans skid downward into lower class these Clinton-like people race towards the top.

Posted by: sfcindy415 | August 1, 2010 9:09 AM

Hell no. They should be able to spend as much as they want or hopefully can afford. it is a lot of money but this was still America kast time I checked,

Having written that it does seem interesting t hat the Clinton's were the precursor for our current socialist, Marxist ,redistributive cabal. Sure could buy a lot of votes, er bail outs, er social entitlements with that kind of money. Then again those preaching this kind of politics usually exempt themselves and the politburo from the actual sacrifices, don't they?

Oh and capitalism isn't creating the shrinking middle class. It might be helping the growing upper calss but entitlement programs and an unwillingness to let people and corps. fail is creating the lower class rise. A lower class more dependent on govt for their survival ( or so they are led to think). I'm sure this is just a coincidence though and not the master plan.

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support (and vote) of Paul. Interesting correlary is you can also count on a sore Peter.

Posted by: theduck6 | August 1, 2010 9:25 AM

The real questions are:

1. What does George Soros expect to receive for his generosity to the Clintons?

2. Did Mr. Soros pay taxes on this money or is it cash he got from an un-taxed offshore account?

Posted by: MaidM1 | August 1, 2010 12:52 PM

So what! Not my child. Why you asking the question? Trying to bring up tax's or what? At least there Employing people that should be good enough...

Posted by: Longbowan | August 1, 2010 1:11 PM

Good for them!

Best wishes for a bright and happy future together!

Posted by: veerle1 | August 1, 2010 1:37 PM

The question is stupid. It's no one business how much they spend on "their" child.

Posted by: candycane1 | August 1, 2010 2:05 PM

I'm more interested in how much extra it cost taxpayers to provide security for an ex-pres, current Sec. of State, etc., over and above what we already pay.

Posted by: victoriafalls100 | August 1, 2010 8:35 PM

ickie1 -
"Jenna's wedding was much more classy and she married a decent man" .
---
You are disgusting. You attacked the people, not the cost, which was the subject of this article. How much did the Bushes spend to marry their daughter off to a political hack who's father helped ruin Virginia? It doesn't matter, every wedding is expensive, especially if a "notable" is involved. I didn't gear any big "stink" from you about the Bush-Hager wedding so I guess your comments are petty and political.

Posted by: pjohn2 | August 2, 2010 9:01 AM

Elisa2 Posted -
"Making this into a Princess Di event by US media is what is disgusting."
-----------------
It was obvious that everything possible was done to avoid media attention for this event. It was the slimy media's tabloid mentality that dug for "facts", didn't find many, then published "rumors" anyway. Put down that tabloid at the supermarket and educate yourself instead of dwelling is your own little pathetic world.

Posted by: pjohn2 | August 2, 2010 9:08 AM

3 to 5 million for any wedding is VULGAR

Posted by: Badwisky | August 2, 2010 9:47 AM

Just think how many poor or unemployed could have been fed on that amount of money this month.

Posted by: tonyjm | August 2, 2010 10:41 AM

So what? it's not my money, it's not the taxpayers' money - let them spend what they want. This is their only child. I don't see where they live an openly lavish lifestyle any way.

Posted by: ktzmom13 | August 2, 2010 10:48 AM

Such shoddy journalism. The $3-5 million figure is mere rumor and speculation. Shameful for the Post to treat the figure as fact. Not to mention this ridiculous poll. I expect more from the Washington Post than this sensationalist tabloid-style cr@p.

Posted by: jycnyc | August 2, 2010 11:06 AM

Ok, I read all the comments.

Yes, the money could have paid a lot of unemployed people. But wedding vendors are typically small businesses, medium size at best. The large amount for the cake? A baker is getting paid. Large amount for food? A chef is getting paid. Large amount for a band? Musicians are getting paid. Keep going for almost all of the wedding expenses. This wedding probably kept a bunch of small businesses afloat. In other words, it kept people from being unemployed.

If you have the money, why is it a bad thing to spend it, especially when it's helping the local economy?

Posted by: CNUCatherine | August 2, 2010 11:37 AM

Lavish weddings (not this lavish) seem to be fairly commonplace. When you stop to think about it, all the money, emotional drama and All the other BS hardly seem worth it. It's all about keeping up with the Joneses, and it is typical of human idiocy. Dopey kids and their dopey parents. If they took all that money and put it into a house, they would be a lot better off down the road. Eloping is the best option.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | August 2, 2010 11:42 AM

I highly doubt it cost anywhere near 3 to 5 million. Typical gossip-mongering probably just kept upping the figure.

Posted by: bruce18 | August 2, 2010 1:50 PM

Gads, bunch of whiny harpies. Former President Clinton and Secretary of State Clinton deserve to be able to have whatever kind of wedding their only child wants!

Put down the sour grapes, folks, and grow UP. I think from the pics that I've seen it was a beautiful wedding.

Posted by: Alex511 | August 2, 2010 6:14 PM

My friend spent $11,000 just on a dress! Her dad owned a restaurant, not a terribly rich guy. Their marriage lasted a year. I do hope the dress wasn't made in China.

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | August 3, 2010 12:49 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company