CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

It's starting to look like Hollywood's infatuation with Sen. Barack Obama was just a flirtation before it settles down with its longtime girlfriend, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.  

Clinton's presidential bid has begun to regain momentum over Obama's in the entertainment industry.  In fact, it's become so strong that Steven Spielberg, once considered a solid supporter of Illinois Democrat Obama, is now believed to be leaning in favor of Clinton, according to longtime industry politicos.

Like Democrats across the country, Hollywood activists are still wondering whether Obama has the experience to tackle the country's problems in these dangerously troubled times. Consultant Noah MametMamet thinks the industry's flirtation with Obama was just a passing fancy, a bit of what-if casting, as in, what if we could get Brad Pitt to play Albert Schweitzer?

"People were intrigued by [Obama], didn't know him, and came out to see and hear him for the first time earlier in the year," Mamet said. "He was like a big opening weekend for a film, which has a drop-off the next week."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- et-cause8jun08,1,2304237.story

Tags: barak obama, experience, Fundraising, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood (all tags)

Comments

57 Comments

Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Enough with the caps in the headline crap.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-08 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

The guy is probably the same as JOECHI and ChicagoDude who are both banned on MYDD.

by Pravin 2007-06-08 06:45AM | 0 recs
Dear Jerome,

Please give a public bitch-slap to the Clinton astroturfers.

P.S. That's not all Clinton supporters, I think georgep for example is ok, they are generally pretty easy to discern.

Sincerely,
me

by jforshaw 2007-06-08 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Sorry, Jerome.  I thought it was OK since it's the industry-standard formatting for newspaper headlines.  ;)

by BigBoyBlue 2007-06-08 07:35AM | 0 recs
Editing is your friend

or should be, bad form

by okamichan13 2007-06-08 08:15AM | 0 recs
But But But Ben Affleck..........

Totally disagrees with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFc6WG6ag DU

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-06-09 04:20AM | 0 recs
LOL! Well, I cannot

say that I care a lot over who "Hollywood" supports.  

Hilary Clinton used 9/11 as a political wedge like George Bush in the debate.  She is unfit to be president.  Do not vote for a demogogue.

by littafi 2007-06-08 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING
Caught a piece of Ben Affleck on Hardball last night. He states exactly the opposite. Funny how this,like the fundraising "leak" seems to be a pattern of her folks nullifying what everybody else hears or thinks is really going on with Obama.
Maybe Ben only spoke for young Hollywood. The writer also "somehow" seems to know why these people are disenchanted with Obama.
Once again eluding to Hillary's inevitably and experience and Obama's lack there of. He must really be a threat.
by g1967 2007-06-08 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

I saw that too.  Affleck precisely said that Clinton thought she just had L.A., and she is wrong.  And Speilberg gave OBAMA a fundraiser in Q1, and Obama is have 2 or 3 fundraisers in L.A. next week.  And I caught Ben Affleck too, and L.A. seems to prefer Obama over Clinton.  That is Hillary vs. Bill.

by icebergslim 2007-06-08 06:56AM | 0 recs
this is just part of

Hillary's internet outreach team..

no substance, no issues just polls and irrelevant slaps at other candidates

by TarHeel 2007-06-08 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: this is just part of

True. And while Hillary is lobbying for the union vote and her chief strategist is being PAID to bust unions - Bill Clinton will proudly be standing with the rightist murderer Uribe tonight - in DC this week to lobby Congress for free trade agreements.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provide r/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&Date= 20070607&ID=7002688

by annefrank 2007-06-08 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Uh, it IS fact that Spielberg was gung-ho on Obama and that has obviously changed (he just hosted a fundraiser for Clinton.)   That shows the veracity of the argument here.  Too much paranoia in these parts that the "media" is just trying to "elect" Clinton and therefore shortchanges Obama or Edwards.   Things are they way they are, because things are just the way they are.  

by georgep 2007-06-08 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Please, have you read through the donations of these candidates.  Many have already GIVEN and to both Obama and Clinton, like Speilberg and Streisand.  Have you lived in California?  I have.  And this is standard, no biggie.  And Obama is scheduled out in California next week for 3/4 fundraisers and it is "guranteed" that Hollywood will be out with checks.  Also, Michelle Obama, just came from San Diego, I lived there, big money.  And the Republicans/Dems gave her a fundraiser luncheon and she brought back est. 400K.  So, furdraisers?  In Cali, everyone is a switch hitter and hedging bets to cover all bases.  Standard, George, standard.

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe and maybe not

But it makes you wonder if people who really want to believe in Obama are getting tired of all the cliches and conventional rhetoric.

by justinh 2007-06-08 06:45AM | 0 recs
no, not really

by jforshaw 2007-06-08 07:13AM | 0 recs
Desperate Moment Here?

This is laughable.  No one knows, unless this poster who has been posting crap the past couple of days in CAPS, is on the inside.  Obama offers dinner with 5 donors and gets 8,000 donations in 24 hours.  I don't see his machine loosing any steam.  And he will be out in Hollywood next week.  This is a horse race down to the wire.  And for someone who is "insignificant", he sure is hauling in "significant" amounts of monies, press, donors and volunteers.  Can't spin that, can you?

by icebergslim 2007-06-08 07:02AM | 0 recs
more Clintonian bullshit

Spielberg was leaned on months ago by Bill to support Hillary over Obama. His mercy "defection," such as it was, happened months ago when he didn't go to the Geffen/Katzenberg fundraiser.

By the way, you guys really are getting pathetic. Leaking to Drudge, leaking to Politico, spinning old news into new bullshit, astroturfing the hell out of myDD -- is q2 going to be THAT bad?

by jforshaw 2007-06-08 07:12AM | 0 recs
I agree that it is More Of Old Clintonian bullshit

They are in a panic mode. Reading from this New York Times article they are in for a rude awakening. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/us/pol itics/07clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politi cs&oref=slogin

But a West Coast swing by Mr. Clinton has come up short thus far: It has raised barely half of the $600,000 in "high goal" commitments the campaign had hoped for. (Donations can always come in late.) And Mrs. Clinton's cocktail party in Columbus, Ohio, was pretty modest: Her "low goal" for the event was $100,000, and actual commitments totaled $98,100 recently.

These details are among a trove of fund-raising data in a confidential document about the 90-odd lunches, dinners and receptions that the campaign planned from April 1 to June 30, as the Clintons escalate a pitched battle with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democratic war chest (not to mention the party's nomination).


They are scared.

by mdiogu 2007-06-08 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: more Clintonian bullshit

Uh, the POLITICO thing was Obama "fighting back against fundraising expectations getting to high" with a rather pathetic "Top 10 List why Clinton's fundraising will be the bomb."  

Maybe you want to make sure you are not in a glass house before throwing stones, eh?  

by georgep 2007-06-08 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP,

Well - Steven Spielberg and the News Corp president gave Hillary a HUGE fundraiser last week.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05012007/new s/nationalnews/hill_ywood_cash_bash_in_w orks_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm

Notice - that Fox News pundits apparently got the memo since they're now demonizing fair trader Edwards 24/7.

by annefrank 2007-06-08 07:12AM | 0 recs
Priceless

"He was like a big opening weekend for a film, which has a drop-off the next week."

'Bout sums it up for me

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-08 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

This was posted last night at JustHillary.com. This site has both pro and con news about Hillary.

by meliou2 2007-06-08 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

I wonder if people actually read the article? Most of this post is directly quoting the LA Times article. I find it hard to believe it's planted (unless you believe the Clinton's reach extends to LA Times staff writers).

One thing I found interesting in the original article is that Ari Emanuel, Rahm's brother, inspiration for Entourage, and big Obama supporter, also donated to Clinton. Could very well be bet-hedging in Hollywood.

by domma 2007-06-08 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Alot of people donated to all three top candidates, like Streisand.  And Speilberg donated to Obama and Clinton.  So, it is hedge betting.

by icebergslim 2007-06-08 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

I can't wait to see the look on all the Clintonista's faces when Hillary fails to win the nomination...

Money can't buy love.

by areucrazy 2007-06-08 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Well, go with the percentages.  She has a good chance to win, probably better than the others at this point.  

 I can't wait to see the posts here SHOULD she win the nomination.   :-)

by georgep 2007-06-08 10:21AM | 0 recs
No surprise at all
As I stated many times before, Obama is just a dotcom candidate. The bubble is due to burst.
Lots of hype, no substance.
by bryandem 2007-06-08 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

Yes, we have all heard your "dot com" analogy. Obama is all hype, Hillary is the real deal, and you are a troll. We get it.

by LandStander 2007-06-08 08:23AM | 0 recs
LOL!!!

10,000 people, volunteers, walking tomorrow for Obama's "Walk for Change".  8000 donations, averaging 25.00 for his "Dinner with Barack Obama" in 24 hours!!  In L.A. next week for 5 fundraisers!!!  Lastly, everyone keeps touting about the comparision with Howard Dean, the dot-com candidate?  The thing is that Dean was constantly ahead in the polls and then crashed.  Obama is not ahead in the polls, a second solidly, keeps engaing people/volunteers, opening offices all over, the cash register is still running, so what does that say?  That people are giving monies to an organization that is a loser?  Or do they know something, internally that even Clinton know, that we do not?  Interesting.  

by icebergslim 2007-06-08 08:24AM | 0 recs
LOL

Your logic is even more absurd. Dean is the first generation dotcom candidate who actually had some substance. Obama is just the replicated version.

I will take Dean any day.

by bryandem 2007-06-08 08:38AM | 0 recs
And you have a problem with REALITY...

there is no doubt that Dean opened the door for online fundraising, but Obama has smashed it to smithereens.  It is true and you know it.  And Obama is not Dean.  If he was such a passing fancy, his boat would have sailed away by now.

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

Long before the Internet every 4 years the Democratic Party has had an insurgent "movement" candidate. That goes all the way back to Eugene McCarthy in 1968. In 2004 Howard Dean was that candidate and in 2008 Obama is the candidate. They attract a lot of buzz but do not win.

by robliberal 2007-06-08 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

But Obama is hardly an insurgent candidate, right?  He gave the key note address at the convention, his campaign is run by establishment insiders, and he has no distinguishing message other than the political cliches of "hope," "bi-partisanship," "changing politics," etc.

by justinh 2007-06-08 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

Even though he is just as much of an establishment candidate as others he is running on an insurgent theme that his campaign is about a "movement" etc. Every political campaign every 4 years is carefully crafted for the openings that are available. Clinton currently leads the major demographic groups so Obama is trying to patch together a coalition of the same groups Dean tried for unsuccessfully in 2004. The strongest group for Edwards has been older, white, male conservative voters so he is trying to appeal more to the left.

by robliberal 2007-06-08 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

I think that's right.  It's more of a campaign theme than a substantive insurgency/movement.

by justinh 2007-06-08 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

McGovern was an insurgent candidate in 1972 and  WON the nomination. Muskie was a huge favorite like Clinton today.

by BDM 2007-06-08 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

The system has changed since 1972 which makes it a lot more difficult for a McGovern type of candidate to win. Under the new system the race will be over by early February.

by robliberal 2007-06-08 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

It may not be. If we donot have clear winners in the first 4 early primaries and their is a division of state winners on Feb. 5th, the campaign could carry on.

Also The democratic primaries are not winner take all delegates like the republicans.(i.e. a candidate could actually win a pluality in a state but receive less delegates than the 2nd place winner. The division of delegates vary by states)

by BDM 2007-06-08 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: No surprise at all

Dotcom candidacy is not insurgent campaign per se. I was referring to the parallel between the internet bubble and Obama's candidacy.

by bryandem 2007-06-08 11:04AM | 0 recs
the astroturfing going on here is really pathetic

do you really think this nonsense is getting Hillary anyvotes on here.

by nevadadem 2007-06-08 08:09AM | 0 recs
This is about as good as it gets on the Clinton

machine's "outreach" to the netroots. Check the diarist's history. He's not here for discussion; he's here to take bites out of Obama and Edwards.

by okamichan13 2007-06-08 08:21AM | 0 recs
I've never before given you a good rating

but this time you earned it.

by mihan 2007-06-08 08:49AM | 0 recs
This is what happens

when the mentally disabled use computers.

by mihan 2007-06-08 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

I doubt it.  You didn't report one fact, just a bunch of innuendo.  

by noquacks 2007-06-08 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Lol its great that every positive thing posted about HRC is "a plant." Paranoia?

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-08 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

In addition to plant, don't forget astroturfers, fakes, Clintonistas, trolls, machines, and mentally disabled...and all in one diary!

Isn't this supposed to be an exchange of ideas?  If so, what's with the ad hominem attacks against posters?  

When did censorship become a progressive principle?

by Blue Beeyotch 2007-06-08 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Well I don't know how the film industry views Hillary versus Obama but I do know that Hillary leads by a wide margin in California state polling.  She also has the majority of Latino voters in CA and is working hard to make further progress in Silicon Valley.  Obama and Edwards definitely have some major catching up to do in California.

by samueldem 2007-06-08 11:13AM | 0 recs
Dean was up big in Cali

too and then lost Iowa. Hillary does bad the first few states she simply unelectable and hollywood liberals will abandon her like the general election titanic she is.

by nevadadem 2007-06-08 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean was up big in Cali

"like the general election Titanic she is."

I call BS on that.    Are you just engaging in a lot of hyperbole and wishful thinking for a particular reason, or what kind of logic is behind that?   You CAN'T compare Dean to Clinton.  It is just ridiculous.  Her support in the varying states is strong and deep.  What, because some people in Iowa may or may not vote a certain way, all of her supporters will just hop away?  Please.   I am sure that is a nice dream for an Obama fan, but is it realistic?  

by georgep 2007-06-08 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

HEY BIG BOY...GET A LIFE

by pservelle 2007-06-08 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING
Obama's message is definitely "themed" as is most of the crap from all politicians. The major difference between his and Hillary's is his is the same no matter who he speaks to. She nuances whichever group she's in front of. His theme works because of the Bush-Clinton Presidency "handoff" that has had us in one of the country's biggest moments of polarization.
People are weary to say the least.
Paranoid? Possibly,but there absolutely ARE things her camp controls. Hedging their bets? Hollywood is as well as many others. Here's the conundrum. She's well versed in the game. He's new to it. He's getting a first hand lesson of how to play Hardball from the masters.
by g1967 2007-06-08 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

America (outside of the progressive biosphere) is not going to elect Barack Obama president. My guess is that Obama is going to use the great pile of cash he is raising to try and buy the VP slot. He may well try to force, corner and muscle Hillary into picking him through money the voters he can bring. It would explain his hesitancy in attacking Hillary too directly. Would Hillary pick Obama as VP? I would not want to have to carrry a prima donna on my back frankly, but the Clintons are masters of compromise. They might well pick him as VP and give him the Iraq portfolio to sort out. Frankly though if I were Hillary I'd forgo Obama, much to vain, I'd go with a Western States, I might have picked Richardson, but there's something a little clownish about him. I'd go with a solid Western States guy like Ken Salazar. A Clinton/Salazar ticket may just be the right recipe.

by superetendar 2007-06-08 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

If Hillary is the nominee, do you want to win the White House?  The only candidate that is appealing, exciting, an ATM machine, can turn out voters all across the board, bring in the indies and siphon off Republicans is Barack Obama.  I have not read a post that Clinton can get indies nor siphon off the moderate Republicans, because she can not.  Do you want the minority vote at an all time high with youth?  Barack Obama.  If she picks a dryer than the desert of Nevada VP, she is going to have major issues getting the nomination, especially if is is Thompson, Fred, that is.

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

I'm thrilled that Hillary's clout is up but I am also happy that Obama has been able to be so strong in this campaign because I am hoping he will be Hillary's VP and all this exposure will help the ticket.  A big Hillary supporter, Obama has impressed me lately very much and I think he would make a great President- he has shown such leadership- he and Hillary would make an incredible team for the job of VP has changed alot and VP's are so much more active and involved than they used to be.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-08 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

In so many ways Obama as VP on a Clinton ticket is very attractive but he also brings a lot of ppotential problems. For example, his campaign staff is made up of a lot of B list former Clintonistas who saw in Obama the chance to create a rival franchise, will they tow the line in a Hillary presidency or cause a lot of trouble by acting as if Obama is a co-President? Would Obama hold the black vote over Hillary for the next 8 years?  Could Obama subordinate his own ambition to Hillary's? The MSM would also try to create a rivalry  between the Obama's and the Clinton's much like they did with the Gore's and the Clinton's the first time around. Could Obama play second fiddle? Some people are just not born to play second fiddle. A more out of the box choice would indeed be someone like Ken Salazar, a good negotiator and someone who would work earnestly with congress to get Hillary's domestic agenda done, especially energy independence. Cementing the hispanic vote for a generation would also be a net plus for the Democratic party. Salazar is not flashy but dependable and solid. With Obama I worry he would turn into the rival Wingman in the movie Top Gun, which would be just too distracting. The country needs to go to  work immediately. But anything is possible in 08.

by superetendar 2007-06-08 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

Reading too much in this.  Hillary Clinton knows Barack Obama is not going to cowtown to anybody.  If she asks him to be on the ticket it is because she needs him, no doubt, we all know this.  Why?  His excitement, youth, donor base, ATM, etc.  If he does not get the nod, he is not obligated to campaign, give up his list, etc. for her.  That is how it is done.  Lastly, this will be Hillary Clinton's WH if she is the nod, not BC.  Don't think he is going to be lurking around running anything, he won't.  That will be perfectly recognized by HC, she don't want anymore shit attached to her that he brought before.  

by icebergslim 2007-06-09 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: CLINTON'S HOLLYWOOD CLOUT UP, OBAMA FADING

I think the advisors would get over any issues they have.  They are philosophically not far removed from each other as it is.

Besides, the Clinton/Gore thing worked out well.  Two full terms of a Democratic presidency have been seen last when?  Plus, Gore came out of the bargain not too shabby.   An almost presidency (won the most votes) and a designation as Democratic Superstar.

by georgep 2007-06-09 04:42PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads