11 May

President Obama Raises $15 Million

                                       

“You know, i don’t think the matter of marriage is really a fundraising matter either for the president — it’s certainly not for me. I don’t know what our figures look like…I hope the issue as tender and sensitive as the marriage issue is not a source of fundraising for either of us.”
-Mitt Romney

Meanwhile back on the Tinseltown farm last night…

The Campaigner-in-chief comes out of the closet to milk the celebrity cash cows:

(CNN) — Hollywood pulled off another blockbuster as a star-studded guest list delivered $15 million into the campaign coffers of President Barack Obama Thursday night.

The fundraiser at the home of actor and activist George Clooney in the Studio City neighborhood of Los Angeles attracted dozens of guests including Clooney’s girlfriend, actress/model Stacy Keibler; DreamWorks studio executive Jeffrey Katzenberg; designer Diane Von Furstenberg; Barbra Streisand and her actor husband James Brolin.

Hollywood…America’s last best hope [/sarcasm]. With Biden out apologizing for supposedly “jumping the gun”, the timing of it all (including the Romney bully#%$* story) seems suspiciously intentional. Could President Obama have raised so much at this event had he not come out of the closet in support of gay marriage? The announcement certainly energized his base:

Obama’s decision to publicly endorse gay marriage has electrified his liberal base and restored some of the transformative luster that had dimmed since his 2008 campaign.

“Pretty darn happy today. Thanks Mr President, for supporting the dignity of my family and so many others!” said actress Jane Lynch of hit TV series “Glee” on her Twitter feed.

Hollywood is a traditional source of funding and adulation for Democratic presidents, though there have been persistent reports that Tinseltown feels it has not been feeling sufficient love from Obama.

Many in California remember the attention that former president Bill Clinton lavished on them. Hollywood was also a prime source of funding for Clinton’s wife Hillary when she ran against Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

WaPo

Fundraisers say the donations began pouring in within minutes of the news Wednesday that Obama, who said he had been “evolving on the issue” for months, affirmed his support for the right of same-sex couples to be married.

~~~

Fundraisers said many donors have chosen to max out their contributions to the campaign and the Democratic Party over the past day as a sign of support for the president’s stance. Donors this year can give $5,000 to Obama and $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee, as well as additional amounts to committees formed to help Obama in swing states.

“Here I thought the LGBT community was already knocking it out of the ballpark for Obama, and now I see they’ve expanded the ballpark,” said Andrew Tobias, a longtime gay rights activist and treasurer of the DNC. “And many of my straight donors are energized as well. People are excited up and down the line.”

~~~

On Thursday night, Obama was slated to attend a $40,000-a-plate dinner at the Los Angeles home of actor George Clooney that could net as much as $16 million in donations online and in person, top donors said.

The campaign has called that number too high but has declined to provide further details. The event could turn out to be the most profitable presidential fundraiser since unlimited donations to political parties were banned a decade ago.

The president is scheduled to return to Los Angeles on June 6 for an LGBT gala to be attended by up to 700 people. Lawyer Dana Perlman, who is helping to organize the event, said he was “ecstatic” about Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage and says he expects gay men and lesbians to respond with contributions.

“This man has come out 100 percent for our community, and each and every member of the community must now step up and do everything he or she can to see that he is reelected,” Perlman said.

Really?! “100 percent”?! As far as I can read it (and not that I’m the only one), unless President Obama is still revol- er, I mean “evolving”, he came out and expressed the bare minimum:

President Obama:

Now– I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue. There’s a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue– in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.

Sounds like there’s more room for him revolving evolving:

Even though Obama is openly and for the first time ever embracing states’ rights on an issue that Stewart considers a civil rights issue — a position that the Left declares racist on every other civil rights issue — Stewart celebrates Obama’s “evolution.”

Even though Obama only decided to, uhm, come out after 32 out of 32 states voted to ban same-sex marriage and the day after the NC vote — Stewart celebrates Obama’s “evolution.”

Even though Obama only decided to declare his support for same-sex marriage after several wealthy and high-profile backers of gay marriage threatened to withhold money — Stewart applauds Obama’s “evolution.”

Even though Obama only decided to stop lying about his position on same-sex marriage a day or so before he’s set to make a major record-setting fundraising swing through New York and Hollywood — Stewart applauds Obama’s “evolution.”

Stewart declares the vote against same-sex marriage in North Carolina “bigoted” and yet through an extraordinary act of cognitive dissonance, takes no issue with Obama singling out gays for his new-found Federalism, which is another way of saying Obama thinks NC should be allowed to pass a law that both Stewart and Obama consider to be a violation of civil rights.

Nothing, however, is more pathetic than the opening of this clip where Stewart actually says out loud that what Obama did was to put principle over politics.

This entry was posted in Gay Marriage, Hollywood Limousine & Learjet Liberals, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 7:30 am
| 217 views

14 Responses to President Obama Raises $15 Million

  1. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 1

    Obama needs to do what he needs to do in light of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court which made it possible for wealthy conservative donors to make political contributions to the Republican platform of their choice without reservation.

    ReplyReply
  2. Wordsmith says: 2

    @Liberal1 (objectivity): Who raised the most in 2008 for his war chest? Obama or McCain?

    ReplyReply
  3. Wordsmith says: 3

    Btw,

    I made this post in haste so I could get to my client in Century City. When I arrived amidst jammed traffic and lots of police cars, the guard at the gate warned me that if I stayed, I’d be stuck there for an hour or so longer ’cause they were about to close the streets down…just not sure exactly when (doesn’t the current PotUS have a reputation for not being punctual?). So I cancelled with my client and left.

    The president must hate me. :-(

    He “did this” to me last time he was in town as well (back in February). Then, I couldn’t even get to my client. So they must have already closed the streets down as he boarded Marine One near the golf course.

    ReplyReply
  4. johngalt says: 4

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    “He’s just doing it for the people.”

    Which is why he went to Hollywood, that bastion of bedrock Americana, in order to combat the influence of the evil corporations, right?

    ReplyReply
  5. Hard Right says: 5

    @Wordsmith:

    And who got more from big business? Hint: it wasn’t McCain. Thanks for tossing yet another softball of stupidity out. It’s now in low earth orbit.

    ReplyReply
  6. Wordsmith says: 6

    I was just reading an article regarding how VP Biden’s comment on MtP regarding “Will & Grace” wasn’t the first time he brought up the program- but did so at a private function 2 weeks prior:

    The show’s co-creator Max Mutchnick said Biden had mentioned Will & Grace in a similar context several weeks before his endorsement.

    “My husband and I were at a private function two weeks prior to the Meet the Press airing,” Mutchnick said Thursday on CBS This Morning. “Vice President Biden was talking to a small group and he made the reference to Will and Grace in that room and called me out at that moment.”

    Mutchnick went on to speculate that Biden and President Barack Obama’s unveiling of their support for gay marriage had been “very choreographed,” noting the White House had recorded Biden’s remarks at the earlier event.

    It made me remember that he also apparently held me up in traffic! Obama twice and Biden once!

    I was dropping someone off after work in the evening and got onto the 10W on-ramp at Crenshaw, only to have a motorcycle cop ahead of me getting on as well, swerving across all lanes with his lights flashing until he finally got the traffic to come to a dead stop. For about 5-10 minutes, he just kept doing figure 8s, sometimes wandering way ahead. And many of us shut off our engines after a while. Eventually, when we started moving, up ahead a procession of vehicles including a paramedic truck surrounded by police cars and cycles had entered the freeway. The police would not let any of us catch up let alone pass as they kept swerving across all lanes; and all on-ramps were blocked by police motorcycles until the cavalcade passed.

    Even when the VP train was entering the 405 interchange (toward LAX I imagine) the cops would not let us pass down the 10 until they were completely off the 10 (I mentioned to the mom of the person I dropped off about my freeway incident and she mentioned Biden was in town).

    Anyway, regarding Biden’s Will & Grace comment on MtP:

    Biden suggested the country was on a course for change, pointing out that such a shift begins “when the social culture changes. … I think Will & Grace did more to educate the American public more than almost anything anybody has done so far. People fear that which is different. Now they’re beginning to understand.”

    I’ve never seen the show and don’t even know the premise of what it’s about. But I found Brent Bozell’s comments regarding its influence of interest:

    So let’s get this straight. Network executives and TV critics and their public-policy defenders have insisted for decades that raunchy TV shows have zero effect on the audience (including young children) and that complainers are paranoid to accuse the networks of promoting a social or sexual agenda. Then, when the president “evolves” to support “gay marriage,” the politicians send thank you cards to Tinseltown for “opening the minds” of the masses.

    What does he think NBC is? “Masterpiece Theatre”? They began airing “Will and Grace” in 1998 at 9:30 p.m., then moved it into the family hour. These excerpts are examples of the kind of sexual raunch they promoted as comedy and which our vice president presumably considered “educational” for families.

    – The most outrageously gay character Jack announced he needed “a new pair of shoes, preferably with a six-foot, gorgeous hunk of man in them.” Later, he took Will and Grace’s dog for a walk in the park, where he said the dog “checked out butts and I checked out butts.”

    – Jack joked: “I get a little funny in the tummy around the Washington Monument.”

    – Jack said he and a boyfriend had agreed to attend the Greenwich Village Halloween parade. “We had a whole Biblical thing planned,” Jack explained to Will. “We were gonna go as Adam and Steve.” Later, as Jack left for the parade, Will lectured, “Don’t put anything in your mouth that isn’t wrapped.”

    On the day Obama proclaimed his change of heart, The New York Times published a promotional front-page article headlined “Gay on TV: It’s All In the Family.” Readers were treated to “Modern Family” co-creator Christopher Lloyd asserting “What this is about, really, is how far America has come, not how far television has come.”

    Inside the paper were large pictures of two marrying women on “Grey’s Anatomy” and two gay men with their adopted toddler on “Modern Family.” In large text, the Times proclaimed, “An implicit recasting of the American family is welcomed by viewers.” They claimed complaints “barely ever bubble to the surface.”

    How desperately did the Times want to hide the traditionalist view? Reporter Brian Stelter claimed “Mitt Romney is known to be a fan of ‘Modern Family,’ and a Catholic group gave it a media award this month.”

    But when the Times linked to evidence that Romney loves “Modern Family,” their own story only claimed that young Romney aide Garrett Jackson recommended the show to him, and Romney got Jackson hooked on “Friday Night Lights,” the canceled high school football drama.

    As for the “Catholic” group awarding a pro-gay show, this same “Catholic In Media Associates” (for entertainment industry insiders) had previously honored both “Glee” and “Ugly Betty,” two other educational shows promoting homosexuality. If that’s a Catholic Church group, then Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics in good standing, and Kathleen Sebelius hasn’t been excommunicated.

    The Times writer did not explain one of the reasons gay characters could be portrayed as “welcomed by viewers” is that any audience of any size can be generalized into a groundswell of mainstream support if the press wants it so. Just how much of a blockbuster, how popular, is Fox’s “Glee,” the current rage of Hollywood? Well, it’s drawing six million viewers. What we are to believe is an avalanche. But in a nation of 311 million, that means 98 percent of Americans aren’t watching.

    Obviously, Hollywood has played a part in eroding America’s moral character on “gay marriage.” It’s about time somebody admitted that Hollywood isn’t just persuading people into buying Wrigley’s Gum or McDonald’s burgers. In between the commercials, they’re selling a radical devolution in moral standards.

    ReplyReply
  7. Wordsmith says: 8

    @Hard Right: Gee…I thought the president was against bullying.

    ReplyReply
  8. Nan G says: 9

    My mom and George C.’s aunt, Rosemary, were friends.
    Rosemary (my mom told me) thought that her nephew was gay-but-closeted way back then.
    In recent years George has always had some model or actress on his arm.
    In olden days such ladies would be called, ”beards.”
    No wonder Obama came out with his newest official stance right before that fundraiser.

    ReplyReply
  9. Wordsmith says: 10

    Great rant from LATimes columnist Steve Lopez:

    They say tonight’s soiree for President Obama at George Clooney’s house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the operative word is “gross.”

    Yeah, pardon me for being such a party pooper, but isn’t it a little offensive that 150 of L.A.’s high rollers would shell out $40,000 to kiss Clooney’s ring and get maybe 10 seconds of face time with Obama?

    And what about the thousands of saps who pumped an average of $23 into Obama’s campaign coffers for the chance to be one of the two peons chosen to break bread with the VIPs?

    I’d rather watch the Lakers game from a bar stool, which in fact is what I may do.

    I haven’t seen Clooney’s guest list, but I’d bet $2 -– and not a penny more –- that his house will be full of that particularly unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this that make them feel good about themselves but don’t really give a toss for their own community. Los Angeles could end up declaring bankruptcy and these posers will be telling friends about their big night at George’s house.

    Fifteen million dollars -– a third of it raised by the local big shots -– is peanuts to Obama, really. Another drop in a bucket the size of Santa Monica Bay. And isn’t money the root of all evil in politics, whether it’s from out-of-control “super PACs” or wanna-be-seen moguls who might be expecting something in return for ponying up?

    Los Angeles is shutting school libraries, laying off teachers and shutting down fire houses. And VIPs are paying $40,000 for a Wolfgang Puck hors d’oeuvre and a silly photo with a president who only now has come to think it might be OK for gay people to have the same rights as straight people.

    Open your eyes, Hollywood hypocrites!

    If there’s any justice, the traffic jam on Ventura Boulevard will be so horrific that you’ll miss the party and end up crying over a Du-par’s short stack.

    [Updated at 5:26 p.m. Oh come on, give me a break, all you defenders of obscene excess.

    The problem is money and the way in which it undercuts democracy.
    Money from the right. Money from the left.

    Money, money, money.

    Yeah, sure, Obama’s got to raise all he can to fend off Mitt Romney and hold onto his seat. But is that a race to the top or a race to the bottom?

    If money buys victory and access, what about the masses who can’t afford a $40 fundraiser let alone a $40,000 party?

    When do they get the president’s ear?

    I suspect some of the self-congratulatory high-rollers at Clooney's house are paying more for two hours with the President than they pay their nannies, housekeepers and gardeners in a year.

    I’m sure George Clooney and some of his pals are good people who want to save the world and even toss a crumb to a local charity now and again. But if they’re so desperate to celebrate their wonderful ways and important causes, why not a Hollywood fundraising party to save the libraries, rec centers or the parks. Or better yet, might Wolfgang Puck and all the beautiful people be available to stage a fundraiser for campaign finance reform?]

    ReplyReply
  10. Richard Wheeler says: 12

    Nan G.re #9 Your mom and Rosemary Clooney sound like a couple of gossiping old biddies.

    Bet you’re glad that gene wasn’t passed down.

    ReplyReply
  11. Helene says: 13

    But will the celebs actually write checks?

    ReplyReply
  12. CAN’T THEY PAY THE DEBT INSTEAD? ARE THEY NOT IN AMERICA?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site