At the rate things are going, she's gonna have to deal with Hillary as president or Michelle Obama as first lady. Eheheheh....

>If he wins the primary, and she keeps doing this kind of stupid stuff, the Republicans are going to take him apart.<

Like they wouldn't if wifey would just keep her mouth shut? They are going to go after him no matter what she does--and they'll try to spin way stronger stuff than an insufficiently-subservient wife to nail him.

>Witness what happened to Howard Dean.<

What the heck did his wife have to do with his campaign not succeeding?

1) Why on earth didn't the VP order the Chinese sub picking EvilBauerDad up to be blown outta the water? That would have saved the board; saved the grandson; and given the US enough witnesses/evidence against China to prevent them from saying "boo," much less striking back over losing a sub.

2) Ugh. The show tried the baby thing with Chloe her first season on 24--and it didn't work then. It's interesting to speculate what kind of mom she'll make, though...:)

3) And Jack _did_ have a woman worthy of him--S2's Kate Warner, heiress to a family conglomerate who got thrown into some much worse situations than Audrey...including discovering her sister was a Bridezilla-by-way-of-Al-Queda. The show later claimed that she dumped Jack because couldn't deal with Jack's work, but she kept up with him toe-for-toe that entire season. And she was much more interesting to watch than Audrey any day.

4) This season was terrific for the first five episodes--then it went Plot-Retread City. That was bound to happen--it's been amazing 24 has been able to keep up the level of surprise and suspense it has as long as it has.

>At least two of my female friends have had fancy weddings pushed on them by their fiances, and, in one case, by the fiances mother...<

It's funny how folks who whine about getting pressured into elaborate weddings sound almost the same as those mothers who whine about being pressured into the "cult of the child/perfect parenting" once they have babies. If you cave on what everyone else wants, you'll cave again and again until you figure out what _you_ want--and stick by it. Bed, made, lie, people...

I've done enough weddings to finally draw the line at what I will and won't do as a guest. I don't do destination or three-day-and-longer weddings (I will spend money on a nice gift if I don't attend), and I've thus far avoided being a bridesmaid. Why? Because, frankly put, if you are single and plan to stay that way, the system is rigged against you. You will never recoup the money that you spend on other people's weddings. I know single folks who dread spring/summer because they wind up looking at at least two-three weddings a season--all of which require at the least 1) new clothes; 2) travel expenses; 3) taking vacation days off from work. And with the growth of gigantic five-day weddings and destination weddings and give-up-engagement-and-wedding-gifts-and-honeymoon-money, just one of these events can be a budget-crusher. And the irony of it is (as others have noted) is that you barely get to see the people whose "special day" you are celebrating.

>The grim patience of the single women who must endure yet another embarrassing bouquet toss.<

Yeah, that's yet another one of those things I won't do. (Btw, bou forgot the joy of the "singles' table"--which usually is always the last to get fed at a reception. And it's _so_ nice to be on display as "people who just haven't been coupled yet, poor dears." :P)

Btw, you forgot the joy of the "singles' table..." Sorry.

>...the number of your friends and relatives who truly don't give a sh*t about your wedding, and would rather do just about anything else on a Saturday afternoon, would probably startle you. Yeah, a lot of them are men, but a surprising number of women as well. Believe me, I've talked to them, in all walks of life.<

Somebody else's fairytale is usually everyone else's nightmare--g! I always wondered why groomsmen got _so_ royally smashed at weddings--until a male friend explained that that was the only way they could get through them.

>I simply don't know many people who relish getting dressed up and sitting through a ceremony--of any kind. There are also all the onerous "obligations" involved, which is a truly thoughtless thing to impose upon friends and loved ones.<

And the wedding-industrial complex has just made those obligations worse, not better. Because the "special day" and financial pressures have become so onerous, the rules of etiquette have multiplied like rabbits. You deal with some of these brides/grooms or go to some of these events and you feel like you've been tossed on a Broadway stage without a script--but are expected to give a good performance.

>And to all the idiots who think this is about proponents of simple weddings "feeling superior", just shut the hell up. It's about your self-indulgence, your unreasonable demands on the time and finances of others, and it's about the simple fact that most people don't like going to weddings. Go ahead, do an anonymous survey. I'm absolutely right about that.<

Much of the thinking behind modern weddings are still based on the small-town "everyone I know lives near me; weddings are still major events/entertainment for a community; and people will do anything to participate" model. I honestly think engaged couples really don't realize what a major financial/temporal hassle weddings can be for everyone else. Like I said, I'd sooner send a gift from Neiman's or Tiffany's and call it even then spend three times that much to attend an event I'd be too stressed-out/broke to enjoy.