Thread: Michelle Obama and the Oscars

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

I totally am a Republican, but I am going to turn sides for just a moment and say think of Ragan and Arnold Schwarzenegger

Ok. I said I could count them on one hand. That is not none. Just not very many.

Originally Posted by Jessica80

40 Celebrities Who Are Republicans.

Not all Hollywood is Democrat. Just like not all of Massachusetts isn't Democrat but we lean heavily towards the left.

Republicans have had plenty of interaction with Hollywood including fundraisers.

I just hate that even a simple fluff debate has to turn political. Why could you not just say..no I don't like that she was part of the Oscars and let it go there? Why does it always have to be a negative comment? Holy crud.

Seriously isn't the whole point of this debate that it is political? I already said I could care less if she went to the Oscars. It doesn't suprise me because the Obama's cater to Hollywood to get their money. I expressed my opinion. That is what this debate was about and thats what I did. What should I have said?

She didn't actually GO to the Oscars. She did a live segment from somewhere else -- maybe the White House? I don't remember.

Every politician "panders" to the people who financially support him or her. That's what politics is, isn't it?

Originally Posted by freddieflounder101

She didn't actually GO to the Oscars. She did a live segment from somewhere else -- maybe the White House? I don't remember.

Every politician "panders" to the people who financially support him or her. That's what politics is, isn't it?

Exactly. I don't know why that is such a big deal that I said they pander to Hollywood. Its just a fact.

I guess I don't really understand how letting someone throw you a fundraiser means that you are pandering to them.

Like, I'm a politician, and I propose/vote for legislation that specifically benefits a certain group of people (particularly one who financially supports me) then I would call that "pandering." An example of this would be that I take money from the NRA, and in turn, I vote in "NRA friendly" ways - vote against things that the NRA opposes like assault weapon bans or vote for things that the NRA supports like allowing guns on college campuses. To me, the money for votes thing is "pandering."

I don't know of any specifically "Hollywood friendly" legislation that Obama has supported, so I'm still not sure how he/they are "pandering." Gloria, can you supply some examples?

(PS - I agree that this debate is and was meant to be political. It's a debate about how Conservatives are opposed to Michelle Obama doing X" today. What else would it be but political? )

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

I don't know of any specifically "Hollywood friendly" legislation that Obama has supported, so I'm still not sure how he/they are "pandering." Gloria, can you supply some examples?

Gay marriage. He changed his mind on that about a week before this fund raiser if I remember right.

Well, you remember it wrong bc Joe Biden was the one who forced that conversation.

Obama: Biden 'Got Out A Little Bit Over His Skis' On Gay Marriage

Though I would hardly consider gay marriage a "Hollywood" issue.

If anything, I'm surprised they support him since you know, he wants to tax people more-- especially wealthy people.....and you know, that is Hollywood.

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

So Kim, to make sure that I understand you, are you saying that you think it was "beneath her?"

I guess I could maybe see that if it were actually Obama (although even then I wouldn't think it was a big deal) but she's not even an elected official so I guess I see her as having even less of an obligation to only participate in very serious high brow occasions.

I totally forgot that I posted on this thread. Just reading it again now. I don't know if beneath her is the right term. Maybe it is, i don't know. I suppose so. Its not that I don't have a lot of respect for performing arts...but i guess overall I've lost respect for the whole Hollywood celebrity scene somewhere along the way, and I'm not entirely sure why. I can't really place my finger on what i'm feeling.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

Gay marriage. He changed his mind on that about a week before this fund raiser if I remember right.

But that's not a specifically "Hollywood" issue. Over 50% of the US now supports gay marriage and 65% of Democrats support it, so I don't know how supporting gay marriage is pandering to Hollywood.

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

But that's not a specifically "Hollywood" issue. Over 50% of the US now supports gay marriage and 65% of Democrats support it, so I don't know how supporting gay marriage is pandering to Hollywood.

I would disagree and so would LOTS of other people. I don't see how anyone could say the timing on that issue wasn't a little more than convenient.

The pattern of missing the wood for the trees has been consistent (it started when Obama wrote a memoir that everybody loved but nobody read) and it continues with his “endorsement” of gay marriage. The talk is all about how incredibly brave he is, not what his support actually means for gays and lesbians or why he waited until this moment to offer it. Conversely, the news that schoolboy Mitt Romney might have once said something nasty to someone who might have been gay has turned him into a rampaging homophobe. Yet again, style has eclipsed substance.

What was the gay marriage endorsement really all about? Ignore the timelines about Joe Biden being a loudmouth and follow the money instead. On Monday, the day before the North Carolina vote, the Hollywood Reporter reported that the marriage question was hurting Obama among west coast donors. “It's safe to say that the longer Obama waits on the issue, the more frustrated the [movie] community will grow with him. Perhaps it won't cost him their votes, but it might slow the flow of cash and public rally appearances. That concern doesn't end with Hollywood … One in six of Obama's so-called bundlers – people who raise money in great stacks for the president's campaign – is gay, giving the issue great importance in his fiscal game.”

So on Monday, Obama was losing dollars on the Hollywood fundraising circuit. On Wednesday, he endorsed gay marriage. On Thursday, he flew to Hollywood for a fundraiser, where 150 donors paid $40,000 each to meet the Prez at the home of George Clooney. Coincidence?

Wait, there’s more! Within minutes of the ABC interview that broke the endorsement, the Pres Tweeted “Same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Later, he issued a photo of himself making the statement with the word (you guessed it) “history” flashed everywhere. Within 90 minutes, Obama’s re-election campaign had pulled in $1 million in donations, while it quickly rolled out a new attack ad calling Romney “backwards” on gay rights. The Hollywood Reporter again: “On June 6, the president will be at the SLS hotel in Beverly Hills for an LGBT fundraiser featuring a performance by Pink. (A sellout now is virtually guaranteed.) Obama will be at another LBGT fundraiser Monday in New York, featuring a performance by Ricky Martin.”

That’s what Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage was all about – not history, not equality, but prising open George Clooney’s wallet. Note that Obama still insists that this issue should be decided at a state level and he has refused to sign a “nondiscrimination executive order.” Given the impotence of his endorsement, it really comes down to one man sharing his personal opinion about a moral matter with the rest of nation. And then making a lot of money out of it.

The gay marriage endorsement was all about Hollywood's money and Obama's ego – Telegraph Blogs