Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 04/12/2015 6:08:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Hillary Clinton's Sunday announcement that she will, in fact, seek the presidency in 2016 is not getting Hollywood’s universal applause, as her most fervent supporters predicted.
As the first woman candidate and a partner in a political marriage that has close and long-standing ties across the entertainment industry, Clinton enjoys the support from key Hollywood fundraisers — but her backing is hardly unanimous and some of what she has is softer than it may appear because industry liberals regard her as a party centrist.
“You’d be surprised by the number of people I’ve heard from who aren’t supporting her,” one top executive told The Hollywood Reporter.
A substantial number of the town’s most progressive Dems still are hoping that Mass. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a firebrand economic populist, will yield to an active draft movement. They’re hoping that her consistent denials of presidential ambition are tactical rather than sincere. Meanwhile, other industry progressives are looking to former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, who recently has been creating waves in Iowa with anti-Wall Street and anti-free trade rhetoric. On April 23, Sony executive Eric Paquette and community activist Dixon Slingerland will host a meet-and-greet for O’Malley at the fashionable Republique restaurant on La Brea Avenue. There even are some donors who are considering contributions to the recently launched “Draft Joe Biden” Super PAC, and the current vice president sounded very much like a potential candidate during a swing through contributor-rich Silicon Valley last week.
Perhaps most important, there is persistent talk among the industry’s C-Suiters that DreamWorks CEO and mega-donor Jeffrey Katzenberg’s enthusiasm for Clinton has dramatically cooled since — as THR first reported — he telephoned her in 2013 and pledged his support. (Katzenberg top political rep, Andy Spahn, told THR on Sunday that the mogul is "100 percent behind Hillary.")
For now, grumbling and uncertainty about a Clinton candidacy is mostly spoken in low tones and involves a minority of Hollywood Democrats. At least two major fundraisers already are being planned on her behalf, one of them at Haim Saban’s Beverly Hills manse on May 6. The billionaire mogul, who has been the Dems’ top donor in several election cycles, has been close to both Clinton’s for years, and even constructed a guest house designed for their use in his sprawling hillside compound.
Still, Clinton’s aides already have told reporters that they believe she will have to raise at least $1 billion to be competitive in the coming general election. Given Hollywood’s critical importance to the Democrats’ funding at all electoral levels these days, anything less than a very enthusiastic industry response could be a problem. Beyond her family’s deep connections in Hollywood, her quest to become the first female president is bound to win her a great deal of support.
The entertainment industry likes to feel it’s on the cutting edge of history. There’s also the possibility that the Republicans may nominate someone sufficiently frightening to Hollywood — say, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Wisc. governor Scott Walker or Kentucky’s Rand Paul — that Clinton will draw support as the essential alternative.
The current reservations about her candidacy, appear to spring mainly from questions about what she actually stands for — apart from personal ambition. In conversations leading up to today’s announcement, her aides have told journalists and potential contributors — to whom she will reach out to in conference calls on Sunday — that her campaign will rest on two pillars: One is greater support for the economic welfare of the middle class; the other is a deep experience of Washington and a demonstrated ability to work toward bipartisan congressional consensus. While Clinton remains a deeply polarizing figure among right-wing Republicans, many of her former Senate colleagues across the aisle fondly remember her willingness to listen and compromise. She understands Washington and Congress, they say, in a way Barack Obama — despite his brief senatorial tenure — never has.
Even so, Hollywood is not the sort of town in which moderation stirs much passion — and that’s what Clinton will need, if she’s to do the fundraising here a billion dollar campaign would require. There also may be lingering doubts about whether her moment has passed. If elected, she will be 69 when she takes office, which would make her the second oldest first-term chief executive after Ronald Reagan. (In a town that values youth — and plastic surgery — some people have complained that she is showing her age.)
For now, Clinton remains very much the Democrats national and Hollywood frontrunner, but look for a lot of maneuvering by those who want to be in position, if she should unexpectedly falter. In the entertainment industry, at least some activists will continue looking for an understudy.
They know a loser when they see one.
In the long run....I think O'Malley has the nomination. A pretty boy with Dem morals..
Ping!
What a sewer Hollywood has become.
You called it.
One heartache Ted is causing the Left is they can’t support Warren or O’Malley because they have to use their primary vote for Jeb in the R primaries.
They can’t use Hillary for vote-registration drives. Then they have their Reagan Democrats who are going to vote for Cruz, anyway. They’ll be lucky to turn out the black vote at half of what it was in ‘08 and ‘12. Centrist latino dems are also uncomforably (for Hillary) likely to be lured by Cruz’ social plank.
They know more outrages will be un-earthed over the next 20 months. DAPAs in limbo will be reticent to vote, leaving a record for their deportation file.
Shaping up to be an unhappy election season for the RATS, and they will turn on each other.
She will turn 69 years old less than a month before Election Day 2016. Meanwhile, her most likely Republican opponents--especially Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Rand Paul--are 15 to 20 years younger and have a better chance to energize a wider spectrum of voters in terms of voting age. Many see Hillary as representing the "old guard" of the Democratic Party like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi--not a good group to be associated with, in my opinion.
People forget that when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, he was only 48 years old at the time, one of the youngest Presidents ever elected. That younger age had HUGE appeal to many voters; look at how Ted Cruz has already energized potentially a much larger voter base than what Mitt Romney did in 2012.
Bwahahaha!
Bet it took four stiff drinks to write that line!
She isn’t commie enough for some of them?
Hollywood wants a communist. Hillary is a one per center.
I was somewhat involved in that business at one time. I walked away without any regrets. If I was to get a call today, and I’m not expecting one, I’d tell whoever was calling to stick it.
According to the article, what makes Hillary a loser in Hollywood's eyes is that she's not progressive enough.
Her reputation precedes her. Hollywood people have been burned by the Clintons before.
Blacks don’t poll high for Hill.
I’ve got some friends in WeHo who have called her a “Fag Hag”.
No surprise about Hollywood. Hill ain’t anywhere near kommie enough for these ultra-rich hypocritical freaks: they want someone who’ll give away more other peoples’ money than Hill will.
I suppose that voting idiots care about what the Hollywood idiots think?????
I believe the RATs are moving to the left. I suppose that makes sense because they’re driving the sane ones out of the party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.