Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary's trip to Hollywood nets $2.6 million in one night - double Obama's Geffen fundraiser

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Herman Munster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:22 PM
Original message
Hillary's trip to Hollywood nets $2.6 million in one night - double Obama's Geffen fundraiser
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261020,00.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton hit Hollywood last night at the estate of grocery store mogul Ron Burkle and took home $2.6 million for her presidential campaign. It was twice as much as Sen. Barack Obama raised last month at a similar fundraiser thrown by Dreamworks SKG's David Geffen — a point that was made privately during the Clinton event by many of the fundraisers.

And while the Burkle event didn't have the quantity of star power that the Geffen event had, it sure had the quality. Clinton was seated at the head table with Barbra Streisand and her husband, actor James Brolin; Yahoo chief executive Terry Semel, who once was the co-head of Warner Bros. with Robert Daly; Daly, with wife, songwriter Carole Bayer Sager. Hollywood was also represented by current Warner's chief Alan Horn, as well as actors and longtime Clinton friends Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson; "Entourage" star Jeremy Piven; "American Idol" judge Paula Abdul; record exec Jeff Ayeroff; HBO chief Chris Albrecht; esteemed producer Norman Lear; and Motown founder Berry Gordy Jr. Close Clinton friend Quincy Jones was absent, but sources said there was an unavoidable conflict.

There were also cadres of agents from the various Hollywood talent agencies: Emmy-winner Christine Lahti; producer/billionaire Steve Bing; TV producer Peter Locke; and even iconic TV actress Catherine Bach, aka Daisy Duke from "The Dukes of Hazzard." They weren't Jennifer Aniston or Denzel Washington, some of the celebrity guests who attended the Geffen/Obama event. But as one observer pointed out: The 500 or so Burkle guests all paid for their tickets.

"There was no padding," the source said. And there was money: Haim Saban, the billionaire mogul whose fortune comes from children's television, was front and center. So was Los Angeles philanthropist and real-estate magnate Richard S. Ziman and the man who invented Ticketmaster (and made a fortune from it), Fred Rosen. Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang was also spotted. As has been reported in the last few days, another Clinton Hollywood fundraiser is being planned for next month. Steven Spielberg, Geffen's partner, is the host.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's all about fuckin' money with Hillary! Makes me sick!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well she's hardly alone in that aspect.
What bums me out is that no one made any negative comments about Obama that we can attribute to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I wonder how many times she has gave a speech with small doners only..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. She gives many speeches that are open to the public
or are for small donors. I have a friend who met her last month at a gathering for small donors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. "It's all about fuckin' money with [enter name here]! Makes me sick!!"
Winning the Whitehouse in '08 won't get done with a vow of poverty, my friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. It's when they turn down offers to speak at democratic clubs with small
donations that will cause them to lose votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. are you saying $$ is not on the minds of ALL candidates????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow - a HUGE Bush supporter like Terry Semel is now a Hillary supporter?
Looks like BushInc really does want a Clinton2 to cover for Bush2 the way Clinton1 covered up for Bush1.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

>>>>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Awww,that's just opinion....
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. All other candidates, give up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well, crap. Why even bother pretending
we're having an election. Damn, just break out the tiara and crown her. Get it over with already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
8. One thing about the Clinton's, they know how to win elections!!
And in 2008 WE MUST HAVE A WIN!!

The stakes are just to high.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. And they kept their powder nice and dry for the last 7yrs while Dems were under
constant attack along with their issues.

Not opposing BushInc all these years, kept their necks nice and safe while they prepared to run against other Democrats. That was SO clever of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laugle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Hi blm, nice to hear from you.
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 06:00 PM by laugle
As usual, we disagree.

Will you ever give the Clinton's a break........

Hell, if Bill had gotten involved in Bushnic, he'd probably be dead! Triple bi-pass is not fun. My dad had it.

I think Hillary's constituents would disagree with you.

I'm not up on all that Bill has been doing, except for his foundation and work with aids. I hear he has kept very busy.

Sometimes.....we just expect too much from our public servants.

I don't want to belabor this too much, but you might sometimes put yourself in their place and ask what would you have expected them to do. Hell.....you could say the same thing about our dem congress when the repugs controlled everything for the
last 6 years.

We will never have a candidate we agree with 100%, not even JK!

I hope you will not let your bias get in the way of making sure we have a dem in the White House in 2008.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Facts is facts. Bill had choices. He protected Poppy Bush. That's not debatable.
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 07:20 PM by blm
It happened. There is plenty of evidence to prove it and none has been posted that disproves it.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

And the if the Clintons ever ONCE in the last 7 years used their 'formidable war machine' to oppose BushInc and defend the Democrats and the party's issues, then please post about it, because I never heard it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhilipShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-25-07 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. One Dollar, One Vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
14. So is a popularity contest among the wealthiest? I don't think so.
Big $ donors and corporations shouldn't pick our candidates, and while they can buy tv time, the trend is moving away from tv to toward the internet. I want a candidate that represents all the people, not those at the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC