Enough with the complaints about Chelsea Clinton's lavish wedding,
writes National Review's Jim Geraghty in a departure from fellow conservatives. The
Clintons "gave $10 million to charity between 2001 and 2008," he
reasons, and "even if [they] were misers, this is their money. They
only have one child; presuming Chelsea never divorces and remarries,
this is it for them. Can you blame them for pulling out all the stops?"
He then refutes a few different criticisms of the wedding,
including one suggesting that such a sumptuous celebration is inappropriate during
I gripe about the Kobe beef and quail-egg appetizers at Obama fundraisers, but that's because he's still a public servant living in public housing at the moment, and ostentatious displays of luxury from an elected leader during year three of a recession rankle. But Bill Clinton's out of office and nobody elected Chelsea to anything. Chelsea's never claimed to be a woman of the people, or salt of the earth, or humble, or anything. For most of her adult life, she's lived her life and avoided the public spotlight. So if her parents can afford it, why shouldn't she get the cake that costs more than some cars and pull out all the stops?He dismisses the idea that the left-wing media would have eviscerated Jenna Bush for a similarly ostentatious wedding. Asks Geraghty: "Don't most media institutions give us enough to gripe about with what they do write, as opposed to what we're certain they would have written in different circumstances?" Beyond that, he asks, "has Chelsea Clinton ever given us grief?" She has steered clear of the political limelight, save for "a few campaign stops with her mother," and supporting her mother is hardly a strongly political statement.