Re: George Clooney fundraiser for Hillary in LA March 24-ish?

by annemarie Thu 24 Mar 2016, 19:27

George and Amal have a busy couple of months coming up.

by party animal - not! Fri 25 Mar 2016, 00:18

Could we raise $350,000 to sit next to him?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by party animal - not! Fri 25 Mar 2016, 00:22

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and this

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Donnamarie Fri 25 Mar 2016, 01:16

party animal - not! wrote:Could we raise $350,000 to sit next to him?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hey PAN it's really only $175,000 for each of us .....

by party animal - not! Fri 25 Mar 2016, 01:35

Oh, right.

What a shame I'm not a San Francisco Uber investor or tech entrepreneur.

Anyone know one I could get to pay for the two tickets - and the dresses appropriate for such an occasion?

by hathaross Fri 25 Mar 2016, 12:34

We can raise the money among all of us and then choose randomly who is going to go.
The winner, must take or do something there for all each one of us who have not been able to go Very Happy

LOL

by party animal - not! Fri 25 Mar 2016, 21:37

The backlash from Sanders - not unsurprising really...and maybe he has a point.......

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by carolhathaway Sat 26 Mar 2016, 09:10

Of course it is an obscene amount of money...

But all the candidates have to make money to finance their campaigns. Or they already have made a lot of money before which would exclude everybody who is not a multimillionaire.

I've realized that events like George's dinner for Hillary are not really understood in Germany because we have a different way of financing election campaigns. They also get money by the economy and also by individuals but it's for the parties, not for the candidates - but we don't have such a long process to find 'the' candidate for each party...

by annemarie Sat 26 Mar 2016, 10:00

i wish that we didn't have such a long process to find candidates it is just ridiculous. People who have the money will spend it, it is their choice.

by carolhathaway Sat 26 Mar 2016, 10:37

Annemarie,
yes, it's also tiring and burns so much money...
Plus if you think about four years ago: It's really difficult to go on with your normal job and also campaign for your re-election. Which means that a president who wants to be re-elected can't do a normal job for about 18 months...
And within this time also won't decide anything unpopular...

by LizzyNY Sat 26 Mar 2016, 12:54

Carolhathaway - Almost anyone running for elective office in this country has to give up doing anything else for the duration of the campaign. If they're already in office there's a good chance their opponents won't let them get anything substantive done anyway. They try to postpone any important issues until after the election in case their candidate wins. Then they can push through their own agenda.

The ridiculous amount of time and money it takes has caused a lot of frustration here. There are many people who would like to reform campaign financing and they've tried to limit campaign spending. Unfortunately, the people who benefit from the fundraising are the ones who make the rules and they want all the money they can get.

I'd love to know who set the prices for the dinners with Hillary, because I have to agree with Bernie Sanders - they are obscene and, IMO, only hurt Hillary's image (and George"s, too). You can't make income inequality an issue and then ask people to pay that kind of money to eat dinner with you! It just highlights the difference between the 1% and the rest of us - or does she really think she's worth that kind of money? Or that most of us can afford it? If so, she's as delusional as Trump and I'll have to look for another candidate!

PS - Sorry for the rant. Reading the posts of all the fans who would love to attend but could never afford to really got under my skin. It isn't supposed to be like that!

by annemarie Sat 26 Mar 2016, 13:41

I can't afford it and even if I could I wouldn't why would I pay that amount for dinner not even to meet George . I'm not rich and probably at this stage in my life never will be unless I win the lottery. For me how the rich live and spend their money has nothing to do with me. The fact I can't afford it doesn't bother me there are lots of things I can't afford that's life.

We have and do what we can within our means. I happen to love seeing George and other rich peoples lifestyles I think good for them they earned what they have they should spend it and enjoy it how they please. If spending an obscene amount to help Hillary makes some one happy hey I say go for it.

by LizzyNY Sat 26 Mar 2016, 14:23

Annemarie - I don't begrudge anyone the money they've earned or the right to spend it any way they want. But don't try to tell me you're concerned for the plight of the average citizen or about the income gap in this country if you can afford $30,000 - $300,000 plus for one dinner and then ask me to pay that outrageous amount just to sit at the same table as you. Just a tad hypocritical - or maybe out of touch with the "masses". Either way, not a good move, IMO.

by DoubleZoe Sat 26 Mar 2016, 14:36

LizzyNY I strongly agree with you. Its just so ridiculous that after what he said :“I really love Bernie Sanders, and am really glad he is in the debate. He is forcing the conversation to things that never get talked about in US politics: disparity between the rich and the poor, which is getting worse and worse every day.” he is just doing the absolute opposite with this faundraising.

I also do not like the idea of bringing the whole political circus into someone's home. I know that there are a lot of place that it can happen but my home would be the last place on earth where I would put all this parade not to mention that he is also kinda "dragging" his wife into this. So if a negative outcome might happen from all of this then both of them will have to swallow and digest its results.

I just dont like the fact that he is so deeply involved in politics. Sad

Im sure he likes Hillary but why the ass kissing so much?? Sad

(am sure they both -with Hillary- scratching eachother's back in this way)

by LizzyNY Sat 26 Mar 2016, 15:49

DoubleZoe - I have no problem with George being so politically active . He has been for a long time and it's a part of his persona that I really respect. We should all probably be more involved with politics than we are, but we're too lazy or just not interested enough until the last minute before an election. I get that he wants to raise money for his candidate of choice. I just wish he had thought it through a bit more.

Having a fundraiser like this in your home is ok, I suppose. I imagine all George and Amal have to do is show up. It's not like they have to cook or do the dishes. And they'll have tons of security to make sure there are no "surprises". Besides, I'm guessing they already know most of the people who will be there.

As for him "dragging" Amal into it, I doubt that she's complaining. She's used to hob-nobbing with powerful people. I'm guessing she's lapping this up.

by fava Sat 26 Mar 2016, 16:29

IMO the are not paying for $300, 000 for the "dinner" or to talk to Hillary or George. The folks with this kind of money are paying/donating in the hopes that Hillary will beat the Republican nominee and that the ideas the attendees care about will at least get a hearing in Washington. These kinds of fundraisers have gone on for years in celebrity's homes. Can Hillary be concerned about income inequality and work on their behalf--and also the celebrities who attend--sure she can IMO. Can she be concerned about gay rights even is she is not gay? Or disabled people? Can George care about refugees and not have them stay in his homes or give away every cent he has to their cause? Sure.

DoubleZoe--as to why he is so involved in politics, have you seen the choices available to Americans in this election?! He has been involved in many election cycles and has always been a staunch Democrat. No reason to stay out of it this time and many reasons to get involved.

by DoubleZoe Sat 26 Mar 2016, 16:39

I dont agree with everything you wrote earlier LizzyNY but I guess its because the distance or cultural or other differences we are having.

Keeping himself out of political scenes would do good to his career and his image (IMO). I dont say that he shouldnt stand up for causes such as he did with Darfur or Sudan but somehow for me it would be better for him not to be judged so easily because of supporting a politician also. He is getting a mass of negative comments already because of the refugee meeting.

For me home is somehow a "sacred" place. As I would never let strangers to come in I would never let the place I live to be the seed bed (lets say) of any political scenes or purposes.

Well for her this is another opportunity to show herself and also getting to know other financially and politically influential people who might help her when she is going to have other cases in the future. But honestly she can't say no can she?

by DoubleZoe Sat 26 Mar 2016, 16:47

Fava I have just started following his career I still dont know so many things about him and didnt know that he started taking part in political events so early on.

by LizzyNY Sat 26 Mar 2016, 17:30

fava wrote:IMO they are not paying for $300, 000 for the "dinner" or to talk to Hillary or George. The folks with this kind of money are paying/donating in the hopes that Hillary will beat the Republican nominee and that the ideas the attendees care about will at least get a hearing in Washington.

Agreed, the money is going into the war chest to beat the Republican nominee. It will be needed. I doubt any really meaningful policy discussions will take place at the dinner table , though- and I can't conceive of any dinner I'd pay $300,000 for, even if I could afford it!

Can Hillary be concerned about income inequality and work on their behalf--and also the celebrities who attend--sure she can IMO.

Of course Hillary can work on behalf of those who are struggling to make ends meet. She always has. That's not the problem I see here. The problem is perception.
I've worked on a couple of election campaigns and know how necessary these fundraising events are and how far in advance they are planned. It is unfortunate that this one comes at such a tense time and is being reported on because of the cost rather than the issues. If people are upset at President Obama dancing the tango, imagine how they feel about a bunch of rich people having a fancy dinner to get another rich person elected. IMO this one can hurt her as much as it will help.

by annemarie Sat 26 Mar 2016, 17:34

Fava I agree with you , you don't have to go through and suffer every problem to care and understand.

by fava Sat 26 Mar 2016, 17:43

LizzyNY wrote:
fava wrote:IMO they are not paying for $300, 000 for the "dinner" or to talk to Hillary or George. The folks with this kind of money are paying/donating in the hopes that Hillary will beat the Republican nominee and that the ideas the attendees care about will at least get a hearing in Washington.

Agreed, the money is going into the war chest to beat the Republican nominee. It will be needed. I doubt any really meaningful policy discussions will take place at the dinner table , though- and I can't conceive of any dinner I'd pay $300,000 for, even if I could afford it!

Can Hillary be concerned about income inequality and work on their behalf--and also the celebrities who attend--sure she can IMO.

Of course Hillary can work on behalf of those who are struggling to make ends meet. She always has. That's not the problem I see here. The problem is perception.
I've worked on a couple of election campaigns and know how necessary these fundraising events are and how far in advance they are planned. It is unfortunate that this one comes at such a tense time and is being reported on because of the cost rather than the issues. If people are upset at President Obama dancing the tango, imagine how they feel about a bunch of rich people having a fancy dinner to get another rich person elected. IMO this one can hurt her as much as it will help.

I understand your point Lizzie. And I don't agree with how campaigns are currently financed and give a big advantage to politician who have money of their own or family money. But a bunch of rich people also have dinners for Republican candidates--they are just mostly business people who don't draw the publicity Hollywood celebrities do. If commenters are complaining about the cost in the comments on websites, I hope they are Bernie supporters and not Trump supporters. Compared to George's life style, Trump's is way more ostentatious and designed to impress.

by fava Sat 26 Mar 2016, 17:49

DoubleZoe wrote:I dont agree with everything you wrote earlier LizzyNY but I guess its because the distance or cultural or other differences we are having.

Keeping himself out of political scenes would do good to his career and his image (IMO). I dont say that he shouldnt stand up for causes such as he did with Darfur or Sudan but somehow for me it would be better for him not to be judged so easily because of supporting a politician also. He is getting a mass of negative comments already because of the refugee meeting.

For me home is somehow a "sacred" place. As I would never let strangers to come in I would never let the place I live to be the seed bed (lets say) of any political scenes or purposes.

Well for her this is another opportunity to show herself and also getting to know other financially and politically influential people who might help her when she is going to have other cases in the future. But honestly she can't say no can she?

Since George has repeatedly used his home for publicity purposes (movie promotion, Oscar campaign), I think it is clear he does not consider it a "sacred place." I don't think vocally supporting Hillary will hurt his career. Hollywood is notoriously left-leaning. As for Amal, I have to assume that as a woman and a human rights attorney and someone who is simpatico with George, she is also a strong Hillary supporter and does not mind doing her bit. They could have hosted the fundraiser somewhere else--they agreed to do it at their home.

by party animal - not! Sat 26 Mar 2016, 19:20

I agree.

But I don't think that the criticism out there is for that event, because the similar Obama event on the basketball court was actually more that the quoted thirty odd thousand for Hillary's campaign.

What might appear to be a grating sum of money is the San Francisco function.

But I honestly think they will have done their homework.

They're in the land of tech entrepreneurs, Palo Alto etc and they will know that sort of sum will still bring an overflow of applicants - let's see whether they release a press statement about it.

I'm willing to bet it will be oversubscribed. And that many are already Democrat Party members

by carolhathaway Sat 26 Mar 2016, 19:43

That's a real interesting discussion.
Thanks for all the 'inputs'!
I assume that all the candidates do such fundraising events to support their campaigns. It's just the prices that vary.

What would Sanders say if George had decided to support him and do a fundraising dinner for him? Would he refuse it? I can't really imagine that.

by LizzyNY Sat 26 Mar 2016, 19:56

PAN - I'm sure you're right. There's a lot of money in the SF tech community and they wouldn't have charged so much if they didn't think they could get it. They're certainly going to need the money for the general election.

My problem, as I said before, is the perception these two dinners are creating - and they are being lumped together in the press. The difference in expected donations is being mentioned, but because they'll be at both fundraisers the lower amount for G&A's dinner isn't stressed. They're asking the maximum contribution possible under the law for the SF dinner and unfortunately the media have picked up on this. They're using these dinners as an example of how the campaign reform regulations don't work. Every candidate is finding ways around the "reforms" and grabbing as much cash as they can. Sadly, they'll need it. But these dinners are becoming the poster child for how bad the situation really is.

Carolhathaway - I think Bernie Sanders would be thrilled if George threw him a fundraiser, but the ticket prices would probably be a lot lower.

by Donnamarie Sun 27 Mar 2016, 04:43

The $300,000 and change being laid out for seats at Hillary's table is going to the Clinton Victory Fund which will help finance a number of House and Senate democratic campaign races this year. So not all that money is going to Hillary's campaign.

But this is business as usual for campaign financing. Nothing new here. Sting hosted a fundraiser for Hillary back in December with a similar price tag of $33,000.

We can only hope that possibly when a new Supreme Court Justice is confirmed somehow the Citizens United decision made by the court a few years ago can be overturned. And in doing so the ridiculous amounts of money poured into these campaigns by corporations and unions can be if not banned at least cut back significantly. Right now corporations and unions can contribute any amount they want.

I guess I don't appreciate the criticism from people over this event when George's fundraiser for Obama in 2012 raised $15 million. The most ever raised at a private event. Didn't hear a lot of complaining from the masses then. And our country was still coming out of a horrific recession. There was more unemployment and average wages were even less at that time. Not to mention the flood of home foreclosures.

by LizzyNY Sun 27 Mar 2016, 13:57

Donnamarie - It isn't the $30,000 ticket that's causing controversy - it's the $300,000 + being charged in SF. The dinner for Obama asked $12,000 per person, which is a lot but a lot less than $30,000 (more than 50% less, as a matter of fact).

IMO, the one good thing coming out of this is that it's bringing attention to campaign financing again. The amount of money needed to run for office in this country is obscene. It practically forces anyone moral or ethical out of the race.

by it's me Sun 27 Mar 2016, 15:37

Right!

by Donnamarie Sun 27 Mar 2016, 19:15

I'm not defending the outrageous amount of money being asked of people to contribute to attend these events. But as I said that $300,000 is being divided up between the Democratic National Committee and state committees for congressional races this year. Are many people who are criticizing aware of this? It's not all going to Clinton's campaign.

This is par for the course. For her December event $100,000 was being asked by "chairs of the event". Whether it's $33,000, $100,000 or $300,000 it's all out of touch with reality to the American public. But this kind of obscene high roller campaigning has been going on for a long time.

But because Sanders has made this one of his platform issues many more people are paying attention to stories like this. So more criticism. But it's isn't anything new.
I hope that by the time the next presidential campaign comes around serious changes to our campaign finance laws will have changed. I'm not too optimistic though.

by party animal - not! Sun 27 Mar 2016, 19:36

Here's Sanders saying it's not a criticism of George, but a criticism of the corrupt system and it needs to be changed (paraphrase)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mm. Wonder how His Nibs is going to react to this..................

by Way2Old4Dis Mon 28 Mar 2016, 03:39

Oh, pfft. I love Bernie Sanders, but this is exactly why he won't win the nomination. Campaign finance reform needs to happen, but the midst of a Presidential campaign among competing millionaires when the world is grappling with terrorism and a wobbly global economy is hardly the forum for tilting at that particular windmill.

He needs to learn to pick his fights. Weighing in on every arguably overindulgent use of people's private money (the fundraisers, Clinton's speaking fees) makes him look like an aging pedantic hippie, IMO.

And if I had the money that would help keep as many Republicans as possible away from Congress and the White House, I would happily give it. Campaign spending is obscene, but as long as the Kochs and their ilk have free reign, there's a battle to be fought, and it's a very expensive one.

JMHO, of course.

by Missa Mon 28 Mar 2016, 21:10

Preach, Way2. You can simultaneously believe the system is a mess and should be changed, and understand the importance of working within the current system to achieve change. Should they hold a dinner that's $10 a plate and celebrate the moral victory while the GOP and Trump ride into the White House on the Koch Bros. billions? Nonsense. And as someone else posted, the money is going to a fund that will support Democratic candidates across the country in House, Senate, and gubernatorial races. It has long been the responsibility of the top of the ticket nominee to support those down ticket candidates. Perhaps if Bernie had been a Democrat for longer than 15 minutes, he'd understand that.

by party animal - not! Mon 28 Mar 2016, 22:19

Do you think that George will find an opportunity to address this, Missa?

I can't believe that he would let this fester in people's minds, and since he's said he'll do anything Hillary wants, he will probably need to consult...........

by LizzyNY Mon 28 Mar 2016, 23:41

PAN - I'm not sure that George is the one who should comment on this. Nothing he says at this point will help. I think any response should come directly from the Clinton campaign. I'm assuming they and the DNC set the prices for the dinners - or at least suggested them - and they should be the ones who take the heat.

There is a good reason they need to raise as much money as they can, and they need to explain it to the public. They might even be able to turn this mess to their advantage.

by Donnamarie Tue 29 Mar 2016, 00:07

I don't think George should be the one to respond to the negative comments. I'm really not so sure anyone should. I think this is getting a lot of attention because Bernie has made it a big issue in his campaign. But if anyone should be asked to answer for it it should be Hillary. She knows how the Democratic National Committee works and it was her campaign that set up these fundraising events. People need to understand that there are a number of crucial Senate races this year that will require substantial financial help for Democrats to get elected and put the Senate back in Democratic control.

On the other hand give it a couple of days and all the chatter will die down because some other outrageous political news story (Trump/Cruz) will take over the airwaves.

by PigPen Tue 05 Apr 2016, 20:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Clooney Crush On ‘The View’

eorge Clooney tops Hillary Clinton’s “celebrity crush” list, the Dem frontrunner told The Ladies of The View this morning, gushing “this is the best thing ever to have George Clooney do this [fundraiser] event for me.”
Related
CNN Lands Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders Debate In New York
Clooney and wife Amal are hosting an exclusive clambake for the Democratic frontrunner on April 16; top-tier tickets cost $33,400.
“He’ a pretty big figure in my celebrity crush list,” Clinton said when show panelists peppered her with a round of pop-culture questions today.
“Who doesn’t like George Clooney in whatever he does,” she gushed.
The former Secretary of State also loves CBS – or so it would seem, based on her list of binge-watch faves:
“I love Madam Secretary. I love The Good Wife. I like NCIS – all varieties. I like [ABC’s] Castle and I have not yet seen the last season for [PBS’s] Downton Abbey. Look, [ABC’s] Scandal, Grey’s Anatomy – I have a big repertoire of things I like,” she said.
Sorry, NBC, Fox.

by Donnamarie Tue 05 Apr 2016, 21:32

Hmmm. Makes me wonder who suggested the Clooney hosted fundraiser ... Hillary or her staff???

I wonder if Hillary's "right-hand" and vice-chair of her campaign Huma Abedin will be with her at these dinners? She reminds me of Amal. Must be the hair. She is American but her parents are Pakistani/Indian.

by What Would He Say Wed 06 Apr 2016, 07:34

This is hard...it's hard to be a fan of someone whose a fan of someone you don't like....George now has a woman either side of him that I dislike...

I won't be going to the dinner because I'd leave myself down....Flicking jelly off a spoon at Hillary one side and Mrs C the other, somewhere along the line My Beatiful George would end up with jelly on his face, or custard.... At that price I'd flick both....

And I'd insist on taking a doggy bag home for Bernie....

by LizzyNY Wed 06 Apr 2016, 15:42

What Would He Say wrote:This is hard...it's hard to be a fan of someone whose a fan of someone you don't like....George now has a woman either side of him that I dislike.

It does make you rethink things, doesn't it? Although of the two, Hillary's the one Id' rather spend time with. But then, I don't think with the same head George apparently does. Very Happy

by annemarie Wed 06 Apr 2016, 16:19

I'd love o sit down with both Amal and Hillary, George loves and adores Amal I would love to talk to her and get to know more about her. It would be nice to question Hillary and see what she is like. And of course I'd love to meet George.

by it's me Wed 06 Apr 2016, 16:34

annemarie wrote:~~I'd love o sit down with both Amal and Hillary, George loves and adores Amal I would love to talk to her and get to know more about her. It would be nice to question Hillary and see what she is like.~~
And of course I'd love to meet George.

sorry

by annemarie Wed 06 Apr 2016, 17:08

That's fine it's me lol.

by Donnamarie Wed 06 Apr 2016, 18:38

I think it would be great to meet and talk to both women. Both very different but accomplished and smart in their own right.

by Sponsored content