02/21/2007
Geffen Stirs Democratic Contenders with Hillary Criticism
Gay mogul David Geffen slammed Hillary Clinton by way of an interview in Maureen Dowd's NYT column, published the day after a fundraiser for Barack Obama that sent $1.3 million into his campaign coffers.
Said Geffen, who was once close to the Clintons but "fell out" in 2000, Dowd notes, when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and not Geffen friend Leonard Peltier: "Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high. Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together. Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television."
According to Dowd, Geffen believes the country has 'Clinton fatigue': "I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person. I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat."
Geffen also criticizes Hillary's current stance on Iraq: It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t. She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms."
He calls Bill "a reckless guy" who "gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country....Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling."
The billionaire acknowledges, however, that Clinton will put up a tough fight: "...that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective."
The Clinton camp has demanded that Obama condemn Geffen's diatribe, noting that Obama has been denouncing "slash and burn politics" on the campaign trail. A press release from Clinton Communications director Howard Wolfson urged:
"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money."
Yikes. I don't think it's gonna get any prettier from here on in.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 5:15 PM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, David Geffen, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
David Geffen is a fucking idiot. There is no pretty way to say it!
Posted by: velvet mafia moron | Feb 21, 2007 5:31:57 PM
What's rather interesting here is that according to that Huffington Post link, Clinton's campaign is claiming that Geffen is an official part of Obama's campaign, calling him "finance chair" - but apparently he isn't.
In other words, Hillary is lying about Obama's campaign to smear him and David Geffen because she doesn't like someone speaking some obvious truths about her.
I like Hillary Clinton less with each passing day. If the Dems actually nominate her, it will be a complete disaster.
Posted by: dpnash | Feb 21, 2007 5:33:35 PM
Hillary is not going to be the Democratic nominee. Just as the right wing controls the important primaries for the Republicans, the left wing does the same for the Democrats, and the left is moving away from Hillary. Obama may actually have a chance of winning the nomination, but at this point I still think he will lose to McCain.
Posted by: joshua | Feb 21, 2007 5:37:53 PM
DPNASH....what you just said is happening to a lot of Democrats.....they are seriously rethinking Hillary and she's not coming out of the rethink a winner.
Posted by: joshua | Feb 21, 2007 5:40:24 PM
unfortunately, politics is less about the quality and more about the quantity. in other words, a candidate is voted in based not on character but on wealth. i find it ironic that as a gay man geffen is supporting obama considering what his stance is on gay marriage. i don't like either clinton (duplicitous like her old man) or obama (for the aforementioned reason).
Posted by: sean | Feb 21, 2007 5:42:02 PM
Now I have Geffen fatigue. If Obama were nominated the Republican would win. And not because he's black.
Posted by: jessejames | Feb 21, 2007 5:43:45 PM
I think Geffen is making the wrong move. He is wasting his money. Hillary is going to win the primary and will face Rudy Guillani in the general election. Go with Hillary or Rudy.
Posted by: Jack! | Feb 21, 2007 5:58:27 PM
No need to vote now, Geffen's made up his mind!
Posted by: anon | Feb 21, 2007 6:00:32 PM
Geffen can blow me. Hillary all the way.
Posted by: Marco | Feb 21, 2007 6:21:30 PM
I have faith in Hillary. I think she's the most intelligent, visionary AND sincere candidate in the running. Nobody even comes close to the class of this woman, seriously.
I think if she manages to communicate what she truly is about to the voters, despite all the myths (gossip) about her, she'll be the next president. No doubts about it. And she'll transform America into a better country than it's ever been.
Posted by: Da | Feb 21, 2007 7:01:50 PM
While I am not a Hillary lover, I will vote for her over any of the GOP field. I do like Obama but he will not get the nomination mainly for three reasons. First is his age and lack of experience, that is why they will pass over John Edwards as well. Second is the fact that despite what people say in polls or in public, many whites will not vote for anyone who is not white.
Just look at how few blacks have been elected to the Senate, Congress or even Governor. The few have been from states with a large city and black electorate. The latest example was what they did to Congressman Ford's running in Tennessee. Just the image of a white woman saying 'Call me Harold', saw his poll numbers drop. Ford was at a Super Bowl party thrown by Playboy Mag, he never met the woman and is in fact single. With Obama they will do worse.
The third factor is Hillary herself. No one should doubt the power of Hillary or the fact she has Bill by her side. WhileI have often disagreed with them both, they are a dream after Bush and Co.
As for Rudy and the GOP, he has no chance of getting past the religious right wing, who controls the party. His stance on social issues, with his past marriages, not to mention his father's mob ties and Bernard Kerik. The GOP is having a race to the right which will turn off most Dems and many Independents
Posted by: patrick nyc | Feb 21, 2007 7:03:27 PM
Excuse me, but Hillary Clinton's stance on gay marriage is pretty much the same as Obama's--she's certainly not openly in favor of it. She doesn't seem to be any better on gay issues than the rest of the Democratic hopefuls. I wish that at least one or two of them would grow some kind of backbone.
I will probably vote for whoever the Dems nominate--but not happily. Hillary panders to the right constantly and I'm not going to believe she's some sort of hero for turning against the war after the rest of the country already has. I'm not going to sing her praises for her silly anti-flag burning bills etc...
Geffen has a right to his opinion and a right to stick to his opinion. I hope Obama does not apologize for him--it wouldn't mean anything anyway. He's not an Obama spokesman he's a private citizen.
Posted by: Daniel | Feb 21, 2007 7:04:55 PM
Geffen can blow me. again.
Posted by: M | Feb 21, 2007 7:12:23 PM
Geffen is entitled to his opinion, much of which I happen to agree-with...and he's willinmg to put his money where his mouth is. How many of critical of his comments here have actually given the St. Hillarybeast money yet?
The loadest complainers don't actually BOTHER to vote; followed immediately by those who sit on their wallets while criticising their "supported choice" as he/she runs out of money. "Political Money is Free Speech", ....and you have to spend it to be heard. I don't like my local GOP committee, so I annoy them by giving the money to the LCR instead.
Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Feb 21, 2007 7:17:39 PM
No matter how you feel about David Geffen, why would Obama apologize or condem his remarks? They were about his relationship with and opinion of the Clintons. Doesn't Hillary give us the credit to distinguish between a policy statement ("I was misled!) vs. a personal statement ("I'm not some Tammy Wynett standing by her man!")
In any event, I think Obama will certainly give Hillary a tough run for the nomination and why shouldn't he. The last time I looked we lived in a democracy and not a hereditary monarchy. Don't we deserve a good hard look at someone who's name is NOT Bush or Clinton????
That being said, it will be tough for someone with the middle name Hussein, black, white or green to become president in this country.
Posted by: hoya86 | Feb 21, 2007 7:25:02 PM
I have much admiration and respect for Hillary, but I've been saying this same thing as well. The country and the world needs a break from the Bush/Clinton back and forth. A new direction is needed. Hillary as VP? Sec of State? Now we're talking.
Posted by: Sandy | Feb 21, 2007 7:25:07 PM
"Excuse me, but Hillary Clinton's stance on gay marriage is pretty much the same as Obama's--she's certainly not openly in favor of it. She doesn't seem to be any better on gay issues than the rest of the Democratic hopefuls. I wish that at least one or two of them would grow some kind of backbone."
Daniel the only one to come out for gay marriage are Kucinich, who has a snowballs chance in hell, and Gen. Wesley Clark. I would vote for Clark in a minute but his best chance is a VP spot.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Feb 21, 2007 7:30:08 PM
Patrick NYC--my point exactly Patrick NYC. Someone up there criticized Obama's stance on gay marriage but as far as I can see none of the Democratic candidates are standard bearers for gay causes so if I am only looking at gay issues it doesn't matter that much who the nominee is. If the best we can say is that they're less anti-gay than the Republicans we are in trouble.
Of course, I don't only vote on gay issues, but I wish we had at least one candidate who wasn't afraid to step up for us.
Posted by: Daniel | Feb 21, 2007 7:42:26 PM
Leonard Peltier needs to stay right where he is...........
Posted by: TonkaManOR | Feb 21, 2007 7:49:21 PM
Was Hillary sincere when she voted for the Iraq war? Is she sincere now that she won't admit it was a mistake?
I agree that Leonard Peltier needs to stay right where he is, but Geffen is right about Rich.
I think people are wrong about white Americans not voting for a black candidate like Obama. A lot of white Americans, even Republicans (especially some of the wealthy ones) are eager to prove they're not racist, and this upcoming election would be a good way to settle it. It's certain white Democrats who cling to the belief that most Americans are racist and can't imagine that Obama will appeal to all Americans. He can and he will.
Obama's fantastic in a lot of ways that Hillary isn't. His lack of experience is a plus.
There's no one more experienced than Dick Cheney, and look what he's done.
Posted by: SGR | Feb 21, 2007 8:09:55 PM
for those in favor of miss hillary, remember she is still the wife of the a-hole who signed into reality the defense of marriage act thereby nullifying any chance of gay marriage being legislated in any state that subscribes to said act. schmucks.
Posted by: sean | Feb 21, 2007 8:10:22 PM
I'm convinced that John Edwards is the best candidate, and he can win.
Please ask yourself, "What has Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama done as senator to make her/him someone you'd want as the Democratic nominee?"
In reviewing the candidates' records, I've determined for myself that John Edwards would make the best nominee and President.
Rehtoric aside, I sincerely believe Edwards is the least likely to sell out the gay community when push comes to shove, and he's the better candidate on the other issues.
Posted by: John | Feb 21, 2007 8:14:59 PM
I know I’m just pissing in the wind of Hurricane Barack and lots of gays will support him regardless, but I will only support him if he gets the nomination, and only then because he wouldn’t bring with him into power all the fascist Repugs that even the most liberal Repug President would. If it’s time to flush anyone/any group it is the Party that has sold its soul.
But why would I not support him until then if his position on gay rights is essentially the same as any other Dem candidate that has a chance? Because they are NOT. The key difference is that he willfully and aggressively packages his “separate and NOT equal” positions on the most dangerous ground of all: religion. Sure, that is the origin of all their beliefs, but is Hillary or Edwards or anyone else this side of Brownback talking about knowing what “God wants”?
Yesterday, in LA, to the cheers of thousands of people of color, he said the world "may have its problems ... but WHAT GOD WANTS US TO DO is to help close that gap, not just with words, but with deeds." emphasis mine
In Durham, New Hampshire, last week, he reiterated that he opposed gay marriage, saying, "This is an issue that I think helps to describe who we are.” He’s damned right it does and the description is of a willfully ignorant bigot. “Obama said he doesn't support gay marriage because the ‘marriage’ label brings about fierce opposition and makes the issue a lost cause. Rather, he said he supports civil unions giving gay couples all the rights and privileges of married couples without the title.”
Sorry, Your Assness, but the title IS a “right”—that’s why the American Taliban is spending millions of dollars to keep it from us. Is he imagining that the IRS tax codes are going to be changed to allow the same kinds of “rights and privileges” to the “civil unioned”?
And, would he ever dare suggest that he would have said to American blacks in 1964 that they should remain second class citizens simply because giving them full equality had fierce opposition? Someone please dig up Martin Luther and Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks and Medger Evers and, while we’re at it, Cesar Chavez and Gandhi and Susan B. Anthony and slap the shit out of them for their foolishness.
From his best selling book: “I must admit that I may have been inflected with society’s prejudices and predilections and attribute them to God. My work with pastors and lay people deepened my resolve to lead a public life. ... I had no community or shared traditions in which to ground my most deeply held beliefs. The Christians with whom I worked recognized themselves in me; they saw that I knew their Book and shared their values and sang their songs.” SHARED THEIR VALUES.... WHAT GOD WANTS US TO DO... From whose mouths have we heard that before? That O’Bama distinctly from the other candidate [and UNNECESSARILY] wraps up and serves his opposition to gay marriage on a religious platter is to, effectively, put him on the side of D. James Kennedy in Ft. Lauderdale, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, ad infinitum.
Therefore, in discussion after discussion, place after place, HE, sweet, charismatic, gentle, Black-man-even-a-conservative white-man-can-love will be reinforcing the idea that we are DIVINELY inferior, DIVINELY condemned. HOW can we ever hope to change society at large whose toxic, willful, angry homophobia springs entirely from religious tradition -- and particularly people of color -- if we publicly endorse and work to elevate someone who is, in effect, working AGAINST us IN GOD'S NAME? This Black man is no Julian Bond, head of the NAACP who endorses FULL MARRIAGE; who boycotted Coretta Scott King’s funeral because, among other reasons, it was being held at the mega church of a rabid homophobe. Neither is he Mrs. King herself who endorsed full marriage. Neither is he Black lesbian pastor, Irene Monroe: "[Obama] does not tackle head-on how the religious rhetoric of this political era has played an audacious role in discrimination against LGBT people, leaving us with little to no hope, his rhetoric included. ...he wouldn’t get my vote."
It seems pretty transparent that Geffen would still be a Clintonite if Clinton had given his friend the pardon he wanted. In any case, just like Mary Cheney, his millions insulate him from virtually all of the limits on freedom suffered by less loaded gay men and women, and the many nongay Hollywoodites who gave Obama hundreds of thousands of dollars and a collective rim job yesterday don’t have to worry about second class citizenship at all. Particularly attendee Eddie Murphy, you know, the guy who didn’t want any “faggots” looking at his ass on stage.
In short, gay marriage may be a moot issue in this election, but where we do have a choice is in selecting the candidate who will, if not make things better, not make them worse by further empowering the “army of God” against us.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 21, 2007 8:31:55 PM
Sorry, Sean, you don't understand the federal DOMA at all. It only prevented any given state from having to recognize marriages performed in other states. That's why individual states passed their own which, though generally given the same nickname DOMA primarily limited marriage WITHIN said states to man-woman.
Posted by: Leland | Feb 21, 2007 8:35:13 PM
Clinton associated with the defense of marriage act and don't ask don't tell policies. Go the hell with this yet another royal family who would rather became a senator of New York than Arkansas because of the "BIG BUCKS".
Go Obama!
Posted by: dema | Feb 21, 2007 8:47:01 PM