Saturday Night Open Thread: Chelsea Clinton Wedding Photos

Update 8:30pm MT: Pictures via NYC Shopping Guide. They are for real, the LA Times and the NY Daily News have them too. Chelsea's dress is by Vera Wang, Hillary wore Oscar de la Renta.

Chelsea Clinton is married. Via the New York Times, [More...]

At 7:23 p.m. came an announcement from the family via e-mail: Ms. Clinton was now married to Marc Mezvinsky.

“Today, we watched with great pride and overwhelming emotion as Chelsea and Marc wed in a beautiful ceremony at Astor Courts, surrounded by family and their close friends,” the Clintons said in a statement. “We could not have asked for a more perfect day to celebrate the beginning of their life together, and we are so happy to welcome Marc into our family.”

Update from the Times:
Ms. Clinton, 30, wore a strapless beaded gown designed by Vera Wang, who caused a commotion of her own when she showed up in town on Saturday. The mother of the bride wore a plum-colored gown by Oscar de la Renta.

The interfaith ceremony was conducted by Rabbi James Ponet and the Reverend William Shillady. Ms. Clinton is Methodist, and Mr. Mezvinsky is Jewish.

It included elements from both traditions: friends and family reading the Seven Blessings, which are typically recited at traditional Jewish weddings following the vows and exchange of rings.

Congrats to Chelsea, Marc and their families. No pictures are available as of yet, even on Twitter.

Update: The cake was by Lulu's of Scarsdale, vegan and gluten free.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Wedding Day for Chelsea Clinton | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wedding pictures at Huffington post. The gown is (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by mogal on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:37:23 PM EST

    Yes, Chelsea's dress is (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    gorgeous. And they all look so, so happy. Really nice.

    There are more pix (none / 0) (#34)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    at Huffpo; go to article on groom's suit, & you'll find close up of him as well as a close up of Bill walking Chelsea down the aisle. Altho Bill looks sad & sunken-faced, you can see some beautiful detail on the dress.  

    Aaawww! [teary smiley] (none / 0) (#12)
    by Nemi on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:20:15 AM EST
    They all look so beautiful and happy.

    Congratulations to the young couple - and their fmilies.


    beautiful! (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    I really love that dress. Perfect for her

    My guilty TV pleasure is TLC 's Say Yes to the Dress, about the bridal boutique in NYC. i've never been married, but always wanted to try on those beautiful gowns! It fascinates me how some gorgeous gowns and gorgeous girls don't always look good together.

    Anyway I will be examining the wedding photos for the next half hour.

    And of course, I hope the happy couple has a wonderful life together.


    Don't look now but (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    an intelligent conversation may be breaking out on ABC This Week.

    Go Christiane!

    Hope I have not spoken too soon.

    I caught the last 20 minutes (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    I never watch the sunday shows anymore, but I figured I'd give C.A. a shot. I think I'll be tuning in again when I have a chance.

    That's about what I caught (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    I also stopped the Sun shows :) I was disappointed in the snip I saw last night with Pelosi who didn't answer a direct question and she let her slide on it. Need to check the whole interview though . . .  my local news described CA as the new 'hard hitting' host asking 'tough questions' so we shall see. I do find her easier to watch than the others and plan on watching again to see how she grows into the position.

    Me too (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    Cluster Bomb Ban Today (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 02:17:56 PM EST
    Except that the major countries manufacturing them have not signed on:

    Neither Israel nor the United States will attend. In fact, the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and Israel are not signatories to the treaty. The US, among others, has argued that cluster bombs are an effective military tool that saves their soldiers' lives. The US has also argued that it's shifting to "smart" cluster bombs that self-destruct or deactivate, reducing the risk to civilians.

    Laos, the most bombed country in the world per capita, strongly backs the treaty. Between 1964 and 1973, the US dropped more than 2 million tons of ordnance in a campaign kept hidden from Congress and the public. Since then, about 20,000 civilians have been maimed or killed by unexploded bombs, according to Legacies of War, a Washington-based group that raises awareness about America's "secret war" in Laos.

    ...Indeed, figures show a dramatic contrast between the amount the US spent bombing Laos and the amount spent clearing away their lethal legacy. The US currently contributes about $5 million per year to cleanup efforts. Every single day for nine years it spent about $17 million (in today's dollars) bombing Laos, according to Legacies of War.


    There is always hope for change . . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by Untold Story on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    Catalonia region of Spain has banned bullfighting - so, perhaps, we can all stop making bombs!

    Yeah (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    But they banned bullfighting because of Catalan nationalism, nothing to do with animal rights.

    Money trumps peace... (none / 0) (#49)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    the man said.  As long as there's money to be made in slaughter, we, and others, will continue to do so. Cluster bombs, as we know, mostly kill the innocent.

    WikiLeaks has posted (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 08:50:12 PM EST
    a massive, larger than all the other files on the page combined, heavily encrypted file on it's dedicated "Afghan War Diary" page labeled simply "Insurance file" (1.4 GB)...

    As Wired puts it,

    Cryptome, a separate secret-spilling site, has speculated that the new file added days later may have been posted as insurance in case something happens to the WikiLeaks website  or to the organization's founder, Julian Assange. In either scenario, WikiLeaks volunteers, under a prearranged agreement with Assange, could send out a password or passphrase to allow anyone who has downloaded the file to open it.

    Daniel Ellsberg, at least, (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    seems to think that Assange could be in some danger.

    I think the Pentagon would like (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    to shut Wikileaks down,  I think President Obama would like to shut Wikileaks down. But I don't think he is in any physical danger.  If someone attempted to hurt him the military would probably try to protect him somehow because they can't afford to have something suspicious happen to him :)  It would go down in everyone's mind that they did it.  The leaks he has received are very low level.  I myself don't really think he put troops at much risk.  There will always be those who will argue that with me.  But if anyone was put at risk it was Afghans that worked with us that can be identified by the Taliban now through the leaked documents.  Those people don't have the protections and the means to use them that our soldiers have.  I doubt the Taliban learned anything new about us from the documents, nothing they didn't already know from watching how we conducted ourselves in Iraq and living with around us.

    In the mind of too many (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 12:16:07 AM EST
    "much" doesn't matter and the safety of the Afghans who helped us means nothing.

    What a way to fight a war.


    What a stupid way to be a peace activist ? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 12:37:26 AM EST
    That is his claim....to be anti-war, by putting the defenseless in greater danger...Just My Opinion.

    You should not adopt (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:03:11 AM EST
    the idea that it is "innocents" who are allegedly in danger. The informants' names are not the names of "innocents".  Rather, TPTB have decided that the best way to address Assange and wikileaks is to vilify him such that some fellow with a couple screws loose will think it right, true and good to do him harm.  Wikileaks is responding in what could be construed as an appropriate manner - self-preservation being the first law of nature (and, according to the Supreme Court in Heller and MacDonald, a fundamental right), this is a message to TPTB to stop trying to get someone to harm them.  They call it the Streisand effect - the more someone complains about something, the more attention that annoyance gets.

    The names of informants which pop up in the reports were put there by the US military and its contractors.  That those names appear, appears to be the fault of the military.  From published reports, it seems wikileaks screened out (and did not publish among the dump of 91,000+) those reports which indicated the presence of named informants, most likely by a designation in their header/classification. Neither they nor, for that matter, the press, have the time to read all the reports.

    Moreover, designating who is a "good guy" and who is not depends on where one stands.  It needs be remembered that, for example, in France circa 1943 the penalty for helping an Allied airman or escaped PW escape or evade capture by the then-legal authorities was 20 years to life in prison.  Similar penalties obtained in Allied countries as to helping escaping or evading Axis personnel.  That we now might hail as heroes the French who risked so much to help Allied  personnnel is merely a reflection of the fact that we won that war;  purely a case of the victors writing history.

    The same principle obtains here.  The American authorities are irked for more than a couple reasons, but it needs be remembered that primus inter pares is that these disclosures are showing the unvarnished reality of the war, not much different than the nightly news bringing fresh battle films from Vietnam into the living rooms of America circa 1968, unmediated by Public Affairs Officers spinning.  Indeed, since these are intelligence/contact reports, higher headquarters placed and places a higher value on accurate, factual reporting and the credibility of these reports.

    I have little doubt that the locals whom the Americans are fighting could, pretty much any time they wanted, hit whom and where they want.  After all, their intel was good enough a couple months ago - before wikileaks - for them to organize and carry off an ambush-with-car-bomb that killed 6 colonels in their convoy on a pretty-much-spur-of-the-moment trip.  The only thing the wikileaks disclosures might endanger is the continuing stream of contracts to the suppliers who've benefitted so handsomely from this war and want the money gusher to continue.


    Ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 09:03:20 AM EST
    We had to kill the Afghans to get some peace...

    Scribe, it matters not who put their names in the papers, it is a supposed "peace activist" who has exposed them.

    Just like those who helped us in Vietnam, and our military who was hurt by the "peace activists" during Vietnam, the Afghans whose names are exposed will be harmed.

    Blood is on the hands of Wikileaks and all those who helped him.


    The Taliban has been (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    as successful as they are because they retaliate and keep lists for years at a time.  You can help the Americans and two years later you and your family are all shot in the head in the middle of the night.  Sorry scribe, I know people who have been there and that is what we deal with and that is why the Taliban was able to do to Afghanistan what it did before we decided we had to do something about it.  They make the Mob look like humanists.

    Because of these leaks, if everyone really does want our troops to leave in a year or so....everyone they can identify that had helped us is 100% dead.  Unbelieveably I just heard Carl Levin say the exact same thing about where the damage has been done when it comes to these leaks.


    This is about more than just Afghanistan. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    From Glenn:

    Second, as was painfully predictable and predicted, the bulk of political discussion in the wake of the WikiLeaks disclosures focuses not on our failing, sagging, pointless, civilian-massacring, soon-to-be-decade-old war, but rather on the Treasonous Evil of WikiLeaks for informing the American people about what their war entails.  While it's true that WikiLeaks should have been much more careful in redacting the names of Afghan sources, watching Endless War Supporters prance around with righteous concern for Afghan lives being endangered by the leak is really too absurd to bear.   You know what endangers innocent Afghan lives?  Ten years of bombings, checkpoint shootings, due-process-free hit squads, air attacks, drones, night raids on homes, etc. etc.

    Numerous government officials are predictably threatening not only WikiLeaks' sources with criminal prosecution, but WikiLeaks itself.  That, of course, would be a major escalation of the Obama administration's war on whistle blowing leaks, which already easily surpasses the war waged by the Bush administration.  And while some TV "journalists" are clearly receptive to such suggestions (MSNBC's Savannah Guthrie yesterday seemed downright excited by, even insistent on, such prosecutions), allowing prosecutions not for those who leak classified information, but also for those who receive and publish it, would obviously allow criminal sanctions to be aimed at journalists who publish or report on classifed information.

    Yes, there is danger and risk in making some information public, but the consequence of creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation that allows the government free reign with no accountability is, in my opinion, much more dangerous and much more risky for us, and for the democracy itself.

    I do understand your concern, and appreciate your inside knowledge and experience, but once we decide that the government can act at will, and owes no duty to the American people, we have ceded whatever power we have left - and it's getting smaller and weaker all the time - to hold those in power accountable and prevent them from seizing total control.


    I hear what you are saying Anne (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    The truth though is that #1. We do have a problem in the region that directly affects us and the rest of the world that walking away from will only make worse, this is not Vietnam.  #2.  When I had a lot of face time with Vietnam Vets protesting the Iraq War with them, the way those Vets went about everything they did was FIRST DO NO HARM.  They were emphatic about that.

    I was deeply saddened when the most prominent and energized leader of that movement that I knew died. Actually I couldn't believe that he died, I thought he walked on water. You can talk about everything with Vietnam Vets though who are long in the tooth in war and debating it.  They saw everything, you don't have to B.S. them or spin them and they have a certain credibility, at least the ones I came to know do.  And they could handle dealing with all sides of the issue.  I like Glenn Greenwald, and he has made his life choices and they are his to make, but he does not know war.  I accept that he is staunch anti-war as well, but that does not instantly make him correct in all of his points just because HE SAYS HE IS AGAINST THE KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.  Very tiny optics where mostly he is only interested in keeping his own hands white as snow and to hell with anyone else who hasn't been as lucky as he has in being born and raised in a nation experiencing mostly peace. Missing so much of the reality of what we really face.  You know what I would like? I would like Glenn Greenwald to embed in Afghanistan.  Of course he would probably never dirty himself in such a way........just something I would like to see.


    Tracy, I am married to a Vietnam vet, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    so war is not an unknown in my household, even if I have not experienced it directly, and even if my husband was lucky enough to get sick and spend most of his tour in relative safety.

    And my husband, as much as he really didn't want to go - he enlisted in the Army because everyone he knew in our area who got drafted ended up in the Marines - and as much as he is not one who takes kindly to authority figures, still believes that civilians just have no business offering their glib opinions about fighting wars, and they have no understanding of what it means to be all for one and one for all lest people die.

    So, I get it.

    Government, and the military especially, are not given to being open or transparent unless someone or something is forcing them to be.  This president has gone out of his way to seek to punish, to intimidate and suppress anyone who is even thinking about spilling any of the government's beans.  We have a Congress that appears to be only marginally informed about what is going on militarily and in the intelligence agencies - and a president who has threatened to veto any legislation that would give the Congress more oversight.

    We are losing, bit by bit, whatever mechanisms we have for keeping us free from total government power - that was my point in quoting Glenn.

    Last night, I watched The Insider, with Al Pacino and Russell Crowe, about tobacco company whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, so I suspect that some of my feelings about the efforts the government is going to to stifle information were magnified by that movie (even though it wasn't the government at work there, but the evil tobacco companies).  

    There has to be a balance, Tracy; it can't always be that we aren't to know what's been going on.

    Julian Assange had some interesting things to say about the criticism he is getting over the leaks:

    Gates said Thursday that the massive leak will have significant impact on troops and allies, revealing techniques and procedures.

    Assange rejected that assessment Friday, saying in a release that Gates "has overseen the killings of thousands of children and adults" in Afghanistan and Iraq [...]

    "Secretary Gates could have used his time, as other nations have done, to announce a broad inquiry into these killings," the statement said. "He could have announced specific criminal investigations into the deaths we have exposed. He could have announced a panel to hear the heartfelt dissent of U.S. soldiers, who know this war from the ground. He could have apologized to the Afghani people.

    "But he did none of these things. He decided to treat these issues and the countries affected by them with contempt. Instead of explaining how he would address these issues, he decided to announce how he would suppress them.

    "This behavior is unacceptable. We will not be suppressed. We will continue to expose abuses by this administration and others."

    When much of what we are told leads us to believe we are all about hearts and minds, the news reports that tell us how badly the effort is going make no sense; when we understand what has actually been going on, two plus two once again adds up to four, and we understand why we are still so hated.

    Bit by bit we are losing our ability to hold anyone accountable for anything - not just in matters of war, but in all matters in which our government is involved; I don't think we should just roll over and accept that - but watching the Obama administration bring the full force of their power against those who speak out, I'm pretty sure that's the ultimate goal: a compliant and subservient citizenry.


    Have we ever been able to hold the (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 06:57:27 PM EST
    Pentagon accountable for much of anything?  They were a key component to us going into Iraq.  Did anyone squeal too much that Iraq really wasn't where we had problems or that the evidence was practically nonexistent. But today's military more often accountable than not, even though everyone likes to act like this is the same military that fought Vietnam.  It works very hard to be accountable like it never did before.  This is a very different very information sharing world now.  We have to be accountable or we have no hope in Afghanistan.

    I'm not against leaking, but when someone leaks and they put innocent civilians in danger, they should have the cojones to own up to it and not seek to pass the buck.  The whole pass the buck thing is very annoying to me because there is always a time when there is no place to pass that buck to except seemingly to the military and everybody will line up to kick us again.  And  you kick them from all directions and don't care if you are credible or not, it is almost as much fun as punching hippies these days.

    I'm just sick of being the red headed step child is all.  But the left is never going to be in love with the military, nor should they I suppose.  We can't get to the truths though of what really needs to happen if it is all nothing more than spin and everybody is accountable for what they do except WikiLeaks.  And all the while this military is working their arses into the dust to fight this fight on all levels that must be attended to.  And when the military comes at it from a social problems problem, everyone freaks out even more than when they drop the bombs on children.  I get it that nobody trusts the military or they trust it implicitly like it is magic or manna from heaven. Few get it that it is human (and that is something that makes us strong and viable as well as weak and simple at times), needed, and currently really does have a job to do.


    Sad, but so true! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Untold Story on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    A friend of mine (none / 0) (#28)
    by Raskolnikov on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    Was telling me about a conversation he had with a good friend that had been in Afghanistan several years over the past five.  The conclusion he had drawn was exactly what you pointed out: that we can't win because we won't indiscriminately kill the people whose minds we're trying to change, whereas the Taliban will.  The fact they have no compunction about slaughtering civilians that aid the US combined with the fact that we are statistically unable to protect them all makes it a losing struggle.

    Just my opinion on the future mosques (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 04:03:52 PM EST
    that are now going to built on certain Posts, first of all we have a lot of people working for us that are Muslim and from parts of the world we have problems in right now.  We recruit them or they find us, they want what we have to offer and they want to affect change.  I used to think it was okay if someone wanted to wear a Burka but I have to deal with a lot of Burkas now cuz they there are a lot of them on Post.  Now I say feck Burkas because I can't stand to see one more woman walk obediently behind some man.  Don't worry, I'll deal with it.  Eventually all these American women will infect theirs :)

    But it has been argued for a few years now that if we were a Muslim military in a fashion that could be easily viewed we'd have instant credibility that we don't have right now.  Everyone at first thought it was a heinous thought though....act like we are a Muslim military? Lots of jokes, lots of speculating, lots of anger too at even suggesting such a thing.  But we have all these Muslims now on posts and bases with us, now we gotta have some Mosques.  So we will, but the Synagogues will have to wait because we don't need any military cred with Jews :)  Pretty fricken unfair if you ask me, but it's the politics stupid :)

    I don't think most lefties truly understand though that the military means to settle this arugment and deal with this threat.  Call them all the names you want to, but they do have a President that means to give them what they need to settle this, and they are going to do it.


    There is a report (none / 0) (#46)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    at Redstate that wikileaks' Assange says - in an interview on Fox, that he gave the Admin opportunity to at comment on materials before their release, but the WH did not respond.  Video provided.  What Assange indicates in the video, however, is that through the NY Times, wikileaks asked the WH for resources to help wikileaks review the materials to redact names of those who could be harmed.  I don't know how much time wikileaks waited for a response before releasing the materials. &, I could certainly understand why the WH would not aid wikileaks.  



    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 04:11:04 PM EST
    They can do their own redacting while they are releasing classified info.  Trust WikiLeaks on anything?  Be a working partner with WikiLeaks?  It would be laughable to me that WikiLeaks is now trying to figure out how to cover their arses on the killings that will now take place thanks to them if it wasn't so pathetic.  They claim that all this leaked info means we need to leave Afghanistan now, if they understand all this info so thoroughly in such a way how come THEY don't know what needs to be redacted to save innocent civilians?  Oy the sheer inflated egos from hell.

    agreed (none / 0) (#53)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:09:53 PM EST
    that it is not government's responsibility to redact for wikileaks

    and it is responsibility of (none / 0) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    journalists, including "investigative" journalists, to do their jobs in responsible manner.  Repubs seem to be using wikileaks' request to say Admin is responsible for inclusion of names and danger to those named. Could you hear the outcry on the right if the Adamin had helped?

    Protecting Afghanis a priority? (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    The WH doesn't care about it's spies in Afghanistan?  Duh.

    Remembering my Aunts Croque Monsieur (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:03:24 PM EST
    made me hungry for it.  I ran out for Gruyere and it was 110 with the heat index and that was five o'clock...whew.  The Mornay came out perfect too, unbelievable when it is me with the whisk.  It is so hot though that dogs must stay in all day right now and they hate it, makes them stir crazy.  It is 9:00 pm and still ninety degrees out.  I have both of the grandgirls tonight too, but the heat has them sapped and Naomi just fell asleep in my lap while Zoe has been down for awhile now.

    Oh yeah, and big news in Weeviltown (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:08:04 PM EST
    is that Fort Rucker is planning to build a mosque on it.

    Congratulations to the newlyweds! (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:07:50 PM EST

    I wonder if Marc bought his apartment (none / 0) (#13)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 07:34:35 AM EST
    before of after the real estate bubble in 2008?

    The couple lives in a three-bedroom apartment on Lower Fifth Avenue in New York with views of Madison Square Park and the Flatiron Building; Mr. Mezvinsky bought the apartment in 2008 for $4 million.

    It's no help being Snooki (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 08:01:50 AM EST
    when you get busted for being a drunken nuisance.  Tequila shots before lunch and an explicit-message t-shirt (read the linked article) don't help, either.

    Somehow, I think Obama's glad he get away with saying he doesn't know who Snooki is.

    From the Department of Can't Make This Up (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 08:22:16 AM EST
    Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin are on the outs (again).  Apparently, he is one of the three possible fathers of a different former girlfriend's coming-soon baby.

    There's trash, and then there's white trash.

    A comparison between Republicans (the Wasilla Hillbillies, or, for that matter, the formerly-hard-partying Bush Twins) and Democrats (Chelsea, Exh. A) is quite productive and will therefore be overlooked by the media.  Of course.

    nasty and petty (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ghost2 on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    There is no reason to bring this up.  I am amazed at supposed-democrats who have adopted the nastiest tactics from the 90s.  Jenna Bush also had a very classy wedding, and she did some nice work, if I recall. She seems to be a nice girl.

    As to you calling people w.t., that's a disgusting epithet.  And, isn't that the name some had for Bill because he came from a poor family with no pretentions or wealthy connections?    

    As to misadjusted family and relations, everyone has them, and I think, so do Bill and Hillary, both of whom I admire greatly.

    Lastly, aren't democrats supposed to be on the side of the poor, unprivilaged people? Silly me.

    Chelsea is a beautiful young women, and it was a very happy day for her and her family.  That's it.  Leave yourbitterness out of her day.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    Lastly, aren't democrats supposed to be on the side of the poor, unprivilaged people?

    Maybe you are thinking about Christians.

    Besides the Democrats are not on the side of anyone who is a right wing nutjob. That would mean Sarah Palin. And as far as protecting the children, Bristol and Levi are desperately trying to land a teevee reality show about their life. Doesn't seem to me that they are interested in privacy, particularly when the trade off is $$$$.

    The first thing you've got to understand is that there's white trash and there's White Trash. Manners and pride separate the two. Common white trash has very little in the way of pride, and manners to speak of, and hardly any respect for anybody or anything. But where I come from, you never failed to say "yes ma'm" and "no sir," never sat on a made-up bed (or put your hat on it), never opened someone else's icebox, never left food on your plate, never left the table without permission, and never forgot to say "thank you" for the teeniest favor. That's the way the ones before us were raised and that's the way they raised us in the South.

    From The White Trash Cookbook.

    Not so bad, imo...


    duh? (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by ghost2 on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    Lastly, aren't democrats supposed to be on the side of the poor, unprivilaged people?

    Maybe you are thinking about Christians.

    enough said just there. I am not interested in a noisefest with you.  I said what it needed to be said.

    Also, to repeat, this is not about your (and btw are you and scribe one and the same?) bitterness, but about Chelesea's happy day.


    Need Glasses? (2.33 / 3) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 02:02:22 PM EST
    This is an open thread.

    Yeah, I know, kool aid intoxication has been known to cause temporary blindness.


    No way Squeaky and Scribe are the same. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 01:09:41 PM EST

    "open thread, all topics welcome" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    the world doesn't stop turning on it's axis every time a Clinton has a "day" of one kind or another..

    More. (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 08:25:26 AM EST
    Now, it's supposedly not true.

    But he and Bristol are still on the outs.


    Pentagon can't account for 95% (none / 0) (#19)
    by Untold Story on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    of Iraq construction money??  

    Anyone interested in helping the Pentagon find the $8.7 billion missing of the $9.1 billion given in Iraq reconstruction according to a recent audit?

    Someone has a lot of extra retirement (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    stashed some place.  This is shameful

    I'd like to know (none / 0) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    how much less the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would have cost the U.S. to now had mercenaries -- private contractors being paid more in a day than many soldiers in a week not been used for "security" or hired under no-bid contracts?

    beyond effing outrageous (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    ..if really true.

    Are we chumps or what?

    Some of it probably went towards building a miniature-Taj Mahal-facsimile chateau in the Alps for Wolfowitz and Chalabai and the rest for off-the-books black ops in Iran and Venezuela.

    What's the difference anyway: all 90% of the Right cares about is that eternal suffering awaits those who question God's infinite love, and "the Left" is tormented by Hamlet-like bourgeois ambivalence because so many Democrats are so resoundingly silent about all of this..


    Was the $2.3 trillion ever found (none / 0) (#43)
    by Untold Story on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    re Rumsfeld disclosure of that amount missing from the Pentagon - on Sept. 10, 2001.  Or, did that get buried and forgotten with the focus on 9/11?

    As taxpayers we should be able to see the Pentagon's books!


    When they caught (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    this guy I thought to myself, "Can the big picture of this story be better?"  I don't think so, but that's just me.

    Can you imagine being surrounded by fistfuls of poorly monitored cash literally at your fingertips?  And my father was no help at all.  The consequences of being caught stealing are usually huge so he always told me that if I ever got caught stealing he'd better find out I tried to steal a million bucks.  "Well gee dad, you said it would be okay with you if I was trying to steal a million bucks and I was trying to steal a million bucks :)"


    Obviously someone (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Untold Story on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    (and more than one) has taken your father's advice!

    Just simply amazing how little regard there is for our money - after its paid.


    death penalty doesn't work? (none / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 01:30:13 PM EST
    From USA today
    "By Dena Potter, Associated Press Writer
    RICHMOND, Va. -- A Virginia inmate who warned prosecutors he would kill again if not given the death penalty for strangling his cellmate was involved in the death of another inmate, authorities said.
    Wise County Commonwealth's Attorney Ron Elkins confirmed late Saturday that Robert Gleason Jr. was "involved" in the death of 26-year-old Aaron Alexander Cooper, though Elkins refused to elaborate. Gleason, who was already serving a life term for murder before killing his cellmate last year, has not been charged in the death.
    Cooper died Wednesday in the recreation yard for inmates housed in segregation at the maximum security Red Onion State Prison in southwestern Virginia. Elkins is awaiting a report from the medical examiner on Monday, but he said authorities believe Cooper was strangled."