This blog studies the media as a main subdivison of its primary purpose, and when I chanced upon a Washing Post article about Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, it got me thinking.
There was a lot of scandalous activity and email revelations from Wikileaks during the election, and this is no shock to anyone who was paying attention. However, The Post addresses this story in particular, which is actually not a story. One of the top Clinton people, Doug Band let it slip in an email that Chelsea was using the Clinton Foundation as her personal grift and slush fund, notably using it to pay for wedding expenses.
Now, weddings are expensive, and it is really not much of a stretch to say Clinton money people might have contributed to the Foundation as a way to get wedding invitations, so in some sense the wedding counted as a Foundation event. In other words, even though I am far from a Clinton fan, this late term revelation did not seem like such a game changer for me. Chelsea is a Clinton, after all, and I sort of expect that a “charitable” organization with 90% overhead is a mainly for money laundering political pay for play bribes. In other words, I was not taken aback by the wedding thing, initially trumpeted by The New York Post here in their Chelsea wedding story.
So why is the Washington Post (again) carrying Clinton water on this a particular item?
Well, obviously, they want Chelsea to run for something someday, and want her as clean as possible. I buy that, but it is not that important. Who really cares about Chelsea Clinton as a politician? Why not Amy Carter or an Obama girl? Just as likely, especially the latter.
The Washington Post is trying to defuse a castigation of Bill Clinton being too cheap to just shell out for Webb Hubbel’s daughter’s wedding? It is possible, and it is the kind of sleazy thing Bill does.
Primarily, though, The Washington Post seems to be saying stupid swing voters saw the bit about Chelsea Clinton using charity money to pay for her wedding, got annoyed, and pulled the lever for Trump or Jill Stein. By calling it fake news, they are trying to delegitimize Trump. My question is, is this reasonable?
As a man, I say no, but women are complicated. Using Charity money meant for Haitian earthquake victims on a gala wedding party would bother a woman more than a man, possibly, because women are more into weddings. This is completely my own experience. Decent men would find it reprehensible, but the Clintons do lots of appalling things. The wedding just adds to the list. Women might change their vote over it, if no other email revelation had swayed them. So it’s possible The Washington Post was using their time well, by which I mean their time as a propaganda arm for the Establishment.
What do I think? I think it would take a months, even year’s long investigation into the Clinton Foundation and Chelsea’s wedding financing to establish the truth. All the Washington Post does is call Doug Band a liar and ends their investigation with that. There is a pattern of criminal activity with the Clintons, and compared to selling ballistic nuke tech to China, Chelsea’s wedding is small potatoes. I think the Washington Post, knowing this, is trying to cloud the real issues with some low hanging fruit. I think it would have been impossible for Chelsea Clinton to pay for her wedding with honest money, since she has never worked a day in her life and so couldn’t have any. She tried to care about money but just couldn’t, remember? So she swiped a couple million for her wedding. Who cares? Not Chelsea. It was just money. It’s not like the poor little Haitian kids were ever going to get it anyway.