Sarah Jessica Parker hosts $40K-a-plate fundraiser for Pres. Obama in her home

All morning, I’ve been reading all about Sarah Jessica Parker and Anna Wintour’s fundraiser for President Obama. Is it really that unusual for celebrities to host a fundraiser for Obama? Media outlets are going kind of crazy about it, that’s why I ask. At the end of the day, I think less than 50 people were at the fundraiser (not including Secret Service) – so why is it such a big deal? Because the fundraiser took place in SJP’s West Village townhouse, and because Anna Wintour (a “bundler” for Obama) was the co-host of the event. New York Magazine had a great piece on what was going down outside of the fundraiser – well-heeled chaos, basically, in which some very rich people couldn’t shop for their wine. There was also this great story about a potential bitch-fight between SJP and Wintour:

Vogue editor and aspiring diplomat Anna Wintour added the role of interior decorator-in-chief to her titles this week by overseeing a decor overhaul at Sarah Jessica Parker’s luxe home before President Obama’s visit. Wintour — who’s reportedly in the running for the US ambassadorship to Britain — was photographed with her daughter Bee Shaffer paying a visit to Parker and Matthew Broderick’s West Village townhouse just as movers were hauling furniture in and out to prep for yesterday’s $80,000-per-couple fund-raiser hosted by Wintour and the “Sex and the City” star.

Sources said the fashion oracle wanted to clean out SJP’s “shabby chic” furniture. One told us, “Anna was going crazy about the decorating. She was having a lot furniture removed and sending all of SJP’s tchotchkes upstairs.

“Some of the stuff in the house was shabby chic, and let’s just say, Anna wanted less shabby, and more chic,” the source added.

While Wintour, known for her painstaking planning of events like the meticulous Met Ball, was at Parker’s place Monday, movers lugged in a piano. Parker was reportedly strolling nearby with her kids and a nanny. After Anna’s work was done, sources said Parker and her brood had to adjust their routines.

“They’ve had to live upstairs in the house,” said a source. “It’s not like this is an event at the Trump SoHo — it’s the place where [Parker] feeds her kids.”

A small battalion of cleaners was spotted scrubbing door handles and windows outside the house. Yesterday, dozens of plump, white roses were delivered along with rental chairs, and a gardener planted mini- ferns out front. But a source close to Wintour downplayed her décor directions, telling us, “Anna didn’t decide the décor. That was done in a meeting without her. Those pictures were just her walking into [the] house for her meeting. Furniture was being brought in and out, but not for Anna’s benefit to preside over, They were in prep mode.” Reps for Wintour and Parker had no comment.

[From Page Six]

I mean… I would insist on a professional cleaning service too, if I was hosting the president. But to completely redecorate the place? I wonder how much SJP ended up shilling out to get her house Obama-ready.

Would you like to know more about the event? Some guests: Meryl Streep, Olivia Wilde and Jason Sudeikis, Michael Kors, Andy Cohen and Aretha Franklin, who left 20 minutes after the president arrived (??). Guess who didn’t show up? Matthew Broderick!! True, he’s doing a Broadway show right now and he had to perform. But if you were hosting the president, why not A) Arrange it on a night when you’re off or B) Call in sick. During his speech, Obama told the assembled crowd:

“We’re going to have to fight for it because the American people are tired. They’ve gone through a very tough economy. They’re still having a tough time. And that’s why this election is going to be close. The other side is going to spend $500 million with a very simple message, which is: ‘You’re frustrated, you’re disappointed, and it’s the fault of the guy in the White House.’ And that’s an elegant message. It happens to be wrong. But it’s crisp. You can fit it on a bumper sticker. We’re going to have to work hard in this election. We’re going to have to work harder than we did in 2008.”

Barack later joked that “most of you are here to see Michelle. I always explain I rank fifth in the hierarchy in the White House: There’s Michelle, my mother-in-law, the two girls and Bo. So that actually makes it six. In terms of star wattage, people come to the White House and say, ‘Where’s Michelle?’ Some of you know that Michelle had some skepticism about a life in politics. I think that’s well-known. And so the grace and the strength and the poise and the warmth that she has brought to an extraordinarily difficult task as First Lady and still being the best mom couldn’t make me prouder. I’m very pleased she’s here. This is sort of our date night.”

When Barack later mentioned that GM is “back on top,” Parker and Broderick’s 9-year-old son, James Wilkie, started clapping impromptu. “That’s worth applauding,” Barack grinned as the guests laughed and joined in. “Right on cue.”

[Via Us Weekly]

That’s cute about James Wilkie clapping. SJP was really proud that she was hostessing too, and during her introductory speech, she praised Michelle Obama as “radiant and extraordinary… You’ve done amazing important things these past four years. . . I very much look forward to the things you’re going to accomplish in the next four years.”

After the event, the Obamas headed to another fundraiser at the Plaza Hotel, where Mariah Carey and Alicia Keys performed. All in all, Obama raised a lot of money last night.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

166 Responses to “Sarah Jessica Parker hosts $40K-a-plate fundraiser for Pres. Obama in her home”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Loulou says:

    And Aretha Franklin left after 40 minutes. According to D-Listed. Something to do with the food or lack thereof, who knows.

    • corny says:

      maybe anna wintour didn’t approve of her outfit…la dee dah

      • Loulou says:

        Or snubbing her back for the KK snub at the Met gala? In any event, I think it’s hilarious she’s considered the next US ambassador to Britain ROTFL Is that a nice way to send her home?? I mean, did Wintour ever give up her Brit citizenship? More questions than answers…

  2. Dusty says:

    Why do actors feel they need to let their political favorites be known? Celebrity types, on the left and right, tend to loose some of their fan base when they do so.

    • Tiffany says:

      Actors are also citizens. They have every right to participate in the political process to the extent that other wealthy folk do. I think it is a bit odd when people get worked up about celebrities, but don’t get outraged at nearly anonymous billionaire donors.

      Ultimately, money just needs to be taken out of the election process. It is much cheaper and easier to share information now, you shouldn’t need $1 Billion per campaign to get the message across.

      • Mimi says:


      • Dusty says:

        Actors are a dime a dozen. The ones who are lucky enough to reach the top do so because of their fan base. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you…

      • Tiffany says:

        I don’t think that participating in the election process is biting any hand. I think that expecting any citizen to refrain from the democratic process is dehumanizing and anti-democratic. They aren’t trained monkeys, they are citizens.

      • Raven says:

        ITA, Tiffany.

      • anti says:

        thank you 🙂

      • Dusty says:

        Throwing a party for the president is participating like the average citizen? I think not.

      • Tiffany says:

        Dusty, if you read my comment I actually said, “They have every right to participate in the political process to the extent that other wealthy folk do.” Notice I used the word “wealthy”.

        Sadly, the current election system is at the mercy of our wealthy citizens.

      • Maguita says:

        May I just add, that with actors YOU KNOW they are only promoting themselves and what their political agenda and stance are.

        With anonymous billionaires, you wonder what companies, group of subsidiaries, and lobbying they are pushing when hosting fundraisers to political candidates.

        Never got hurt by an actor’s movie-making career…

      • Shady says:

        It’s not the fact that actors support the parties, it’s the fact that they run their mouths.

    • Crazy Charlize says:

      You can fit all the celebrity types who are on the right in a phone booth, as they are blackballed by the leftist Hollyweird elites.

      BTW, someone should tell Footface that she’s part of the 1% that the lefties demonize.

      • e.non says:

        ***ou can fit all the celebrity types who are on the right in a phone booth, as they are blackballed by the leftist Hollyweird elites.***

        examples please.

    • garvels says:

      The celebrities take a risk of turning off 50% of their fan base when they endorse a candidate because the country is so polarized. If I were an agent advising my celebrity client,I would tell them to play it smart, like England’s Royal family and be politically neutral when in public.

      I have noticed that the majority of celebrities who are politically vocal appear to be well established in their careers.

      • Dusty says:

        I agree but don’t let Tiffany know your opinion. LOL

      • Maguita says:


        Gossip sites help you also grow, and challenge your beliefs, from pot to Jesus. You can refuse to partake in the knowledge, or soak it in.

        Whatever the situation, Tiffany’s tone had been nothing but respectful.

        You have your right to an opinion, but you also in the same purpose gain the right to have your opinion opposed.

      • Tiffany says:

        Thank you Maguita! I think it is a very healthy thing for citizens to discuss politics, but it has to be kept respectful and factual. I am human and make errors, but I try to stick to that.

    • KardASSian Butt ~formerly known as ZenB!tch says:

      Actors are citizens – they can do what they want but so can we.

      Example: Clooney’s event for Obama didn’t bother me even though I don’t like Obama. He somehow got LAPD to do the impossible and traffic was minimal for an Obama visit to LA. Clooney has always been active in events and he probably lobbied Obama for the people of South Sudan as long as he was there.

      SJP and these people on the other hand are NOT “Hollywood” to me. You know how the rest of the country feels about “Hollywood” well that is how I feel about these people. They are “the Fashion Industry” and while I may not boycott Michael Kors, I don’t give a rats arse what he thinks or does and I am not an SJP fan and this will not help that situation.

      My opinion of these things is colored by my opinion of the host or hostess and my opinion of the host or hostess also colors my opinion of the candidate.

      This event puts Obama on even ground with Romney and his Trump event. I don’t like SJP or Wintour or any of those people and I don’t like The Donald.

      What I really want to see is a Hollywood Republican event brought to you by Mel Gibson! LMAO

    • olcranky says:

      if they want to make their politics be known and are willing to take the hit for it, I have no problem with them doing so (provided it’s done appropriately as opposed to bringing politics into a place where it really isn’t in good taste to do so). What irks me is when they make a big deal about their politics and then complain that it hurts their career/financial bottom line (I think both Penn and Sarandon have whinged about that, some of the Hwood reps whine about it too).

      • RuddyZooKeeper says:

        Dixie Chicks, anyone? Yes, being unintelligently outspoken in your political views can be extremely damaging to a career in entertainment. Many of these entertainment types didn’t even finish high school, so I don’t think I’ll trust their judgment over my own. I cringe at much of the uneducated, unresearched, and uninformed drivel that too often gets spouted, no matter what their party affiliation.

  3. ok says:

    now if only people would raise this kind of money for charity or poor children or sick children…yeah I know it’s an election year and all, but celebrities are so annoying sometimes.

    • neelyo says:

      What’s annoying to me is the talk of how much money is being raised for campaigns.

      Citizens United has to be overturned. The economy is in the crapper and every day there’s another report of this or that billionaire or corporation (same thing?) writing another million dollar check to help their candidate and protect their own self-interests. It’s disgusting.

      On a gossipy note, I love that picture of Anna Wintour. It’s horrible.

      • ok says:

        I agree !

      • annaloo. says:

        ITA on citizens United being overturned!! How was that passed?? Of what importance is the singular American Citizen if it is about how money you raise to throw at superPacs!

        and what makes me SICk is that more money will be spent on this Presidential mudslinging contest, when that money SO RIGHTFULLY could go to schools, infrastructure or something ELSE than stupid ads for stupid politicians whose colors are NOT about blue or red but GREEN!

      • pammi says:

        Totally agree. Why not just have public debates on national television only. I’m sure ABC, Fox, NBC would gladly give up air time for free. Let’s just hear what the candidates have to say and let them answer questions. Why the need for commercials worth millions of dollars? And elaborate campaign slogans? Why don’t they make their commercials on youtube…it’s free ! It’s not fair, that only RICH people can become candidates for presidency. It shouldn’t be about how rich the person is but what they are willing to do for the country and how much passion they truly have to make a difference.

      • Tiffany says:

        Pammi, I COMPLETELY agree with everythign you said!!!!

        The cost of fundraising has overtaken our political process. Especially in the House of Representatives, where they run every 2 years! Their jobs end up becoming non-stop fundraising instead of legislating.

      • Jen says:

        If Citizens United is overturned then in the same vein they need to prevent labor unions and any forced membership group (bar & medical associations, etc) from contributing to political campaigns. Unions and these associations are huge sources of money to politicians (making them beholden) and members are forced to pay dues to work their job or practice their profession. Totally unfair when you don’t agree with the organization’s position but are forced to pay for the political donations of the organization through your dues.

      • Tiffany says:

        I agree Jen. I also think disclosure and donation limits should apply to non-profits as well.

      • KardASSian Butt ~formerly known as ZenB!tch says:

        @Pammi I think they used to back in the 80s when I was a kid. I remember grumbling about it. 😀

      • olcranky says:

        late to the party but I completely agree with you all. It’s extremely disturbing that we are developing into a Plutocracy with elections, essentially, being bought and the lives and well-being of our citizens being sold

      • anonomouse says:

        Um, those saying “how did that (Citizens United) get passed” are embarrassing yourselves. Citizens United is a US Supreme Court *decision* based on its interpretation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech, not a law that was “passed” (which would be the legislative branch), so you really don’t have any standing to say you disagree with it or that it should be “overturned” (by what court? Oh, yeah, there isn’t a higher court in this country than the SCOTUS) because obviously you are parroting talking points and have absolutely no understanding about the case itself, or legal theories on the Court’s application of the FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION. To say you think it has to be “overturned” you are saying you want to *change* the First Amendment. And considering you fools don’t even realize Citizens United is a case, I sure as heck don’t want you fooling around with MY freedom of speech.
        Stick with gossiping about hairstyles & such & leave the US Constitution alone.

        And to you naifs worried about this country becoming a “plutocracy” — bwahahahahahahahaha! Welcome to the 19th century.

  4. Maguita says:

    Well, good for him. He is going to need every red cent to keep up with Mitt’s billionaire club and supporters.

    But it bothers me that the only time Obama is worthy of mention, is when he is surrounded by Hollywood stars. I understand this is a GOSSIP site, but during election season, aren’t gossip/Hollywood mediums supposed to equally represent BOTH parties?

    I would like to hear about Mitt Romney’s latest fund raiser. Honest. Would like to know what was said and done during Mitt’s famous fundraisers. And how the private golf course on a private house property looked meticulous in the twilight.

    • Marjalane says:

      Mitt Romney is getting most of his money from business people and they don’t harbor the same desperate need to have their ego’s stroked as your average celebrity. It’ funny how the only money Obama is getting these days IS from his celeb friends and George Soros.

      • Vicky says:


      • SFMandy says:

        Because wealthy businessmen don’t have big egos. At all. That’s why they drive really modest cars and only date age-appropriate women.

        Do you actually know any business people?

      • Tiffany says:

        “business people and they don’t harbor the same desperate need to have their ego’s stroked as your average celebrity.”

        LOL!!! That is very funny, and very inaccurate. Business men consider donations an investment, and they will expect a RETURN on that investment if their guy gets into office.

      • Dhavy says:

        I rather have a celebrity raise the money rather than some billionare “businessman” whose purpose is to buy his way into the Whitehouse so that he can keep getting richer, pay less taxes, and outsource jobs to other countries

      • e.non says:

        uh… soros is not giving money to obama this time around…

        …those pesky facts.

    • Maguita says:

      @Marjalaine, that is exactly what is very scary right now.

      With the new Super PACs, and nonprofit groups filing their latest 2012 financial disclosures with the FEC, most of these groups are not disclosing any information about donors.

      Which with new rules and regulations on Super CPACs, it is highly encouraging high-political and financial rollers to more secretly play a most decisive role in this year’s elections!

      Just Karl Rove’s Crossroads Group had raised as of March 2012 more than 49 MILLION DOLLARS!!! That is all for Mitt Romney. And anyone speaking of Carl Rove, KNOWS he/she are speaking of the Devil’s lieutenant!

      We are less than six months away from elections. We all know that electoral contributions reach all-time highs in the last months: If Mitt Romney has already raised an estimated $500 Million dollars, with more than 70% coming from those anonymous Super CPACs, doesn’t it scare you that a US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION is now more assuredly in the hands of the richest 1%, and all is left, the poorest 99% is fundraising in front of the cameras for the other party?

      IT might be their only promotional medium, but it is a VERY poor promotional one. And having my livelihood (and apparently vagina) in the hands of the likes of Karl Rove, is truly a scary thing.

      That is why I was wondering if CB would equally speak of both parties’ fundraisers, so we can compare dollars per plate, and venues reserved.

      I am mostly an equal-opportunity snarkist! And I would like to hear, on one of my favorite gossip sites no less, what people are doing for Romney. Just to be fair, and see also the kind of comments/information Romney’s threads would get.

      Seems we’re only given the chance in attacking Obama during this particular election season. A bit of Tit-for-tat would be fairplay.

      • Reece says:

        I would too.

      • neelyo says:

        The problem with that is that any fundraiser I’ve read about for Romney is a closed door affair where no press is allowed. Thus, you don’t hear anything about them at all. That scares me much more than a celebrity fundraiser for Obama.

      • The Original Denise says:

        President Obama is the sitting President; he has a full time job (managing the country) as well as his campaign efforts. Hence, there is nothing wrong with commenting on the fundraisers that he attends with wealthy celebrities and bankers. I am sure not sure what your complaint is here. I am no “fan” of either, but Romney is still an unelected private citizen, who apparently is not supported by big liberal Hollywood, so I don’t see what the beef is about. No one is begrudging Obama his money making efforts. Part of his activities is on the tax payer dime. It took me two hours to get home last night because of train delays and rerouting in NYC, because the President was in town. When Romney’s fundraising interrupts traffic and transportation, then I’ll bitch about his fundraising. This post was about a specific event. Why drag Romney into it? I hate election season. The end.

      • Maguita says:

        First off, being an election season you have to talk about both candidates equally, no matter their job-held positions. It is what we call the electoral democratic process, and based on your comment, we can now safely say that the President is pulling double-duty right now, trying to finance and promote his re-election, while holding the job of President.

        Just like all his predecessors.

        Maybe you haven’t read this site or comment section regularly, but in the past few weeks, politics and religion have been steadily trickling into conversations, because, again, it IS election season.

        You can sit it out Denise, no problem, but please, understand that we as a democracy feel the need to talk it out, and for me, it needs to be equally hashed out based on BOTH parties’ behavior. And up to now, we’ve only heard of, and therefore had the chance of criticizing, Obama’s fundraisers.

        Time to give the other party equal opportunity. For both support and criticism.

      • Maguita says:

        @Neelyo – You have to check on YouTube, and a few of the republican publications and sites to get details.

        It’s a bit more research than say Obama’s fundraisers… Which begs the question, why so secretive?

    • KardASSian Butt ~formerly known as ZenB!tch says:

      Legally, only radio and television are required to cover both (or all) candidates equally. I’m not even sure about cable stations like E! and Style.

      Gossip sites are gossip sites and unless Mitt can get Bruce Willis and the Governator to host one, he will not get equal coverage on gossip sites.

      I am interested in all of them because I do want to know how beautiful the golf course looked in the twilight.

    • Mairead says:

      I’m afraid that I can’t remember if you were a regular here during the last US election, but there was a lot of coverage and it did get pretty hairy.

      As an aside,it did lead me to wonder about the correlation of geniuses who accused Obama of being a “socialist” (always those who don’t understand what that means) and demanding that celebrities (well, mainly Brangelina) give money to charity or directly to the poor. Some were always very socialistic with other people’s money.

  5. NYC_girl says:

    Anna doesn’t look very good in that second pic. Why would she have all of those people in her house? There are hundreds of swank places for an event in this city. Why disrupt your family? And how big can a townhouse be to fit all those people? I wouldn’t bother. I’d rent out space in the Four Seasons hotel and have it there, then go home to my shabby chic crap.

    • Rhea says:

      Same with me. But maybe they want that “intimate” feeling and being different with other fundraiser by doing it at their own townhouse. Heck, they have the money to do it either way.

  6. HappyMom says:

    Nauseating. And I voted for him.

    • spinner says:

      I didn’t vote for him & it’s still nauseating.

      • nan says:

        What’s even more nauseating is the people who voted for him and will vote for him AGAIN!!!! By the way, I see he’s very fond of the 1% ONLY when they put money in his pocket.

      • Dana M says:

        Throwing up now.

    • KardASSian Butt ~formerly known as ZenB!tch says:

      I’m nauseated that I voted for him.

      He is in the pocket of the 1% and I wish the Occupy Movement would figure that out.

      For the record, I have nothing against rich people, I want to be one or marry one or both.

      I don’t see PEOPLE as the 1% or the 5% or whatever.

      It’s Wall Street and Big Oil that bothers me. When people become corporations or is it the other way around? For me that is the 1% and that is what we need to fight and reform.

      I don’t want to take PEOPLE’S money away and redistribute it. I want people to earn what they earn and not these extra bonuses they give themselves. I would like to see that reinvested into research and other things that would help the actual company and create more jobs.

  7. marie says:

    I get moving breakables and such, but if you are going to host people in your home, why completely redecorate? If the furnitures not good then host the thing somewhere else.. jeez, it seems like wasted money, whatever-it’s not my money so I shouldn’t complain.

    and I have no idea why but every time I read something on Olivia Wilde it causes a massive eye roll..

  8. Chris says:

    Hate to rain on the parade and preach. Obama will lose all 50 states in november, it is a done deal. Yet another passive, corporate democrat has ruined my political party. Obama’s complete passivity when charged by his voters with cleaning up a mess and utter cluelessness regarding seemingly everything has guaranteed his sorry fate. Neither Anna nor the schnozz can save him now. 30 years ago Madonna laid out a ballsy, consistent, stable and tough way of dealing with right-wing garbage. Nobody took her lead and their rights will now be stripped. My fellow democrats will now be forced to learn how to fight for their rights. They will have to find their balls. I can’t wait for november and the end of the corporate democrat. Hilary will be stopped by folks like me. Her husband was given use of a historical landmark and proceeded to ejaculate all over the place like the corporate hick he was and is. He also created the whole financial mess by repealing Glass-Steagull. Goodbye to the corporate dems. Can’t wait. LOL. Thank you.

    • annaloo. says:

      So, I take it that you’re voting for Romney then?

      We truly, truly need a third party inthis country– both parties are owned by corporate interests, and this election we will see that the millionaires and corporations will purchase who wins this election with these indiscriminate funding of superPacs. So much for individual liberty and equal representation..

    • Marjalane says:

      Your logic is flawed, but I totally agree with your end result.

      • Chris says:

        My logic is flawless. Lol. Impossible to vote for someone this passive AND incompetent if one is remotely intelligent. Obama’s impotency makes Romney far more attractive both politically and physically than he actually is. Bigger win than Reagan in ’80. A democrat without balls is worthless. They will learn. Lol.

      • Janet says:

        @Chris: Your “logic” comes off more like wishful thinking and you come off sounding like a petulant child who’s pissed because Obama didn’t bring a magic wand into the White House with him.

    • fancyamazon says:

      He isn’t perfect, for sure, but I think many Americans are missing the fact that it was always going to take a lot longer than one term to “fix” the problems that the United States has been building up for a decade or more. From north of the border, I could see the disaffection that people are showing towards Obama coming during his election campaign four years ago. People want an instant fix to HUGE problems.

      Not saying that you thought it would all be amazingly back to prosperity in like six months or something, but from here, your President did the best he could.

      • Reece says:

        Agreed it’s going to take more than 4 years (8 even) and one President to fix the problems that have built up in this country for years.

      • Tiffany says:

        I agree. I don’t think that people understand the amount of value that was taken out of the economy when the housing market tanked. The bubble was built by credit-default swaps, where banks didn’t have to take responsibility for the risky loans they were granting.

        This was a HUGE problem, and it doesn’t go away over night, especially with a congresss that has vowed to stop progress as a political strategy.

      • Maguita says:

        Please, don’t forget the 2 wars, costing us by 2009 three TRILLION DOLLARS, that Bush had decided to not include in the books, hiding therefore facts and how much in-debt and misery he had left the American people.

        Which btw, Obama had opted to intently include by 2010 in our apparent factoral debt, in order to show how much we really need to get out of the shit hole we were left in, at the end of the GWB administration.

        All public records.

      • mayamae says:

        Maguita – you must remember many people have no idea what you are talking about because they watch Fox News.

    • Janet says:

      He’s leading Romney right now by 260 electoral votes to 191, and he’s going to steamroller Romney in the debates. Romney is never going to know what hit him.

      • Chris says:

        Obama surrogate? He has no record to defend in debate, will lose badly. What are his accomplishments? Weakness will be punished whether you like it or not. As it should be. Like I said previously, I can’t wait for corporate democrats to be removed from the process. Enough is enough. Why don’t we compare predictions in early november. Lol.

      • Janet says:

        You’re on. You need a good wake-up call. Four years ago Obama was predicted to win DC and lose everything else.

        I can’t wait for the debates. Obama will stomp Romney through the floor. Romney’s problem is he doesn’t know shit from shinola and has no position on anything.

    • Issa says:

      No candidate has ever lost 50 states. No Candidate will ever lose all 50 states. Not going to happen. I think it’s a little of an exaggeration to claim he’s going to lose all 50 states, lol.
      Tonight Romney is having is big support raising dinner with Billionaire Shel Adleson. Shel is basically donating millions with one dinner. Along with his Billionaire/Millionaire friends. Obama has celebrities, Romney has Billionaires. What do we have, bought & paid for candidates! Our congress & President are being bought by those much richer than us. None of them, will make your life better, none of them! Romney or Obama. Neither one of them will make America a better place to live. However, they can make America much worse. So how should we vote? Guess vote for the least of two evils.

      • Maguita says:


        I completely agree with you!

        It has become quite clear, that the government is not “ours”, it does not represent its citizens. Because of lobbying laws, vastly voted to be illogically under-regulated in the past decade, that our democratic process had been slowly and surely devoured by voracious capitalism.

        Government does not work for the people, government is unfortunately under lobbyist thumb. Government is owned by big companies, pushing for more unregulated products up our asses.

        We are not citizens anymore, we are CONSUMERS. We are lab rats. For drug companies to sell us more drugs, for food industries to push down our throats more addictive food, and for Wall Street to rid us even more of our money, unpunished.

        All these industries have become more under-regulated in the past decade, so they could make evern more money off our misery and hopelessness.

        And they dumb you down, even more so with un-needed drug prescriptions, that dull your mind from the pain and aches caused by our poisoned crops and water, so you consume even more food to dull your pain, and feed your addictions. They strip you away, leave you with nothing. No job, no home, no health, no hope. So when you are naked, helpless, in pain, and over-medicated, they sell you Jesus.

        Always when in fear, we humans have always turned to deities, so it would rain, so we have food, so they stop the pain. And politicians know this and play so much on it. Just so you don’t ask the right questions.

        Ever wondered how the most preachy among politicians are the ones who most often break their Lord’s Commandments?

        Why do they think controlling, or lately, punishing your reproductive system is going to right the economy?

        What does not allowing you to take the contraceptive pill have anything to do with getting your jobs back from overseas, to American soil?

        What the hell does a couple’s loving relationship, or someone’s ethnic background, have anything to do with feeding your children, and sending them to college, so they could have a brighter future?

        Is their ego that big that they would rather have the country on the brink of bankruptcy, JUST TO MAKE A POINT, rather than give in to the black guy in office?

        There are basic realities in America today people, that had been more than proven. Like giving money back to the top, NEVER EVER TRICKLES DOWN. It stays in the top’s pocket. And overseas bank accounts.

        So what DO you do?

        As a woman, you vote what is best for you. You vote for the one who is not preoccupied with your vagina, but the tampons a job will afford you to buy.

        You f-cking vote for the one that is not preoccupied with “saving your soul”, but the one who is looking to saving your life.

        As Issa said, you vote for the lesser evil.

  9. Kate says:

    I honestly think the reason this event is getting such pub is that it was hosted/sponsored by female celebrities, not male celebrities. When Clooney throws him a fundraiser, there is coverage, but not like this. The scrutiny is always greater when women are involved. This one also got everyone up in arms with the video/invite made by Winter, et al. I really hate that it is 2012 and our country is still so misogynistic. Even if you disagree, females, even celebrities, can have an opinion and throw around their (monetary) weight too.

    Unrelated — I find it extremely odd/interesting that Matthew Broderick wasn’t there. It is at his friggin’ house. He could’ve taken one night off from his show.

  10. annaloo. says:

    and HOW jealous is Goop?

  11. WaywardGirl says:

    Joey Sorge (Matthew Broderick’s understudy for Nice Work if You Can Get It) tweeted: Matthew Broderick is on stage right now in @NiceWorkBway after hosting dinner with President @Obama2012 #whatalife

    So he may have been there for a bit and then jetted off for the show. Even if it is the President,”calling sick” for something like that looks bad in the theater world. The main reason people are seeing the show is because of Matthew. As an actor on Broadway has an obligation to try and make very show.

    • Susan says:

      Exactly! Ticket holders spent good money to see him. Bdway only goes dark Sun/Mon nights and I’m guessing that Obama wasn’t free then.

    • MJ says:

      Matthew said on the View a couple of weeks ago that he would be there for the early part and then go do his show. Obama was almost 90 minutes late due to NYC traffic and had to appear at Ground Zero first. In true theater tradition, Matthew performed because if he didn’t ticket holders would have had to been offered another ticket for another show since Matthew’s name is billed above the show’s title. If the performer is not there, audience must be refunded or tix exchange for another performance. Good for Matthew for honoring his obligation to fans first.

  12. endlesscircles says:

    I’ve seen words on here like “nauseating” and “annoying” about this fundraiser. What is Obama supposed to do? If he doesn’t raise money, how can he run a campaign?

    What’s “nauseating” and “annoying” is he’s competing against a half-billionaire who made his money by being a corporate raider, sending his money to off-shore accounts and thus not paying taxes, and sending his company’s jobs overseas. THAT’s nauseating and annoying.

    Wake up and smell the lip gloss, ladies.

    • WaywardGirl says:


    • whatever says:

      no it’s annoying and I have a right to say it…it’s annoying and disgusting how much money is spent on elections…really disgusting…that’s MY opinion and you can’t tell me otherwise…so go smell your own lipgloss.

    • nan says:

      Stop drinking the Kool-Aid lady and wake-up yourself.

      • Happymom says:

        Word. Signed, Recovering Democrat

      • Relli says:

        We live in a democracy which means we are allowed to speak our minds and make our own decisions even if we don’t ALL agree. kool-aid is served on both sides, deal with it.

    • kris says:

      its “nauseating” because he shits all over the elite and wealthy of the country. says that “romney isnt in touch with the common man” but he flies all over the states on OUR dime raising money at celebrity homes. he pretends to be someone he isnt. he is not the common man, and neither is romney. but the difference is romney doesnt pretend to be.

      obama makes me sick because he tells the middle class to hate the wealthy people of this country. to cause class warfare, to divide us even more. yet he HATES the middle class and likes to be among the elite. its “annoying” because of the outright level of hypocrisy.

      • Tiffany says:

        Obama does NOT tell people to hate the wealthy of this country. He just recognizes the FACT that many laws were written by the 1% for the 1%, to the detriment of the middle class. For example, Social Security taxes are only taken out of the around the first $150k that a person makes. So someone who is making $90k per year is paying a MUCH higher percentage of taxes for social security than someone making $25 million.

        Pointing out the flaws in our system does not mean that success is being attacked. That is a scapegoat to avoid the real problems with country

      • Marjalane says:

        The current administration hasn’t managed to fulfill ANY of the grandiose campaign promises that were made. Obama was simply not qualified for his position. The Democratic party made a huge error in supporting him over Hillary, and they are paying for it. There’s no way Obama will win a 2nd term, and it’s too bad he wasn’t senator longer- he really needed more political experience. I think Romney will win easily in Nov.

      • Tiffany says:

        Marjalane, according to politifact, Obama has kept 184 promises, compromised on 61, and broke 71.

      • Sweettart says:

        Te real irony to me is that the whole thrust of the Obama agenda is the belief that “some people just have too much money,” but yet these people don’t seem to get that.

        Seriously, people get all bent out of shape about “corporations” and “businesses.” These business people are the ones that invest in your community, sponsor the local baseball teams, hire your kids, and pay the commerical property tax rates.

        The invest, they risk, they build, and they create.

        On the other hand, you have these celebrities, who through the luck of connections or timing were fortunate enough to rise in an industry and get paid obscene amounts of money to speak words that other people wrote.

        Are the “A list” the most talented? Hardly.

        If they’re all for the common man, they why don’t they throw in their “excess wages” to be redistributed among all SAG members?

        Regarding Social Security, the reason it is only on the first $150k is because it’s not supposed to be a tax.

        It is supposed to be a forced sort of savings plan. They don’t withhold on more than that because the amount the earner would receive after that is maxed out.

        Now you could argue that most of us aren’t going to see any SS anyway and it would be true, but that’s not the point.

      • Maguita says:

        “These business people are the ones that invest in your community, sponsor the local baseball teams, hire your kids, and pay the commerical property tax rates.
        The invest, they risk, they build, and they create.”

        You mean like Bain Capital? You know, the place where one “learns all about creating jobs”.

        Here is a more moderate and middle-way link:

  13. LAK says:

    Please would someone explain super pacs to me.

    I am not American although i am following the election but i do get muddled where super pacs are concerned.

    Were they not in play the last few elections? Why are they such a big deal this time round?

    Thank you.

    • Maguita says:

      See my comment upthread with what SuperCPACs are resulting in unbalanced contribution and anonymous funds.

      Generally speaking, it amounts to anonymous (if one chooses to be) contributions bundled up, to one’s favorite party, WITH NO CONTRIBUTION DOLLAR LIMITS. There are less regulations now in regards of how much one citizen, or a nonprofit organization funded by a privately owned company, can contribute to a bundled political fund.

      Some are contributing as much as $100 million: and guess what you have to promise to get that $100 million in exchange.

      • LAK says:

        Ah. I see. Thank you.

        That is terrible.

        Just read your comment upthread – Karl Rove- WTH????!!!!

      • kris says:

        thanks for editorializing your response instead of giving an unbiased answer to this person.

        “oh my god! no limit to contributions!!! oh noo!!!”

        no one was f*cking complaining when george soros gave obama $25 million dollars. no one makes a big deal with wealth on the left, but on the rights just EVIL. youre so twisted its sad. dont OD on the kool-aid.

      • LAK says:

        @Kris – biased or not, i understood what @Maguita’s explanation.

        My personal opinion based on my country is that there should be a cap on fundraising irrespective of party politics and complete transparency of donors. That cap should be both for amount raised by the party, candidate and given by the donor either individually or group.

        Money buys influence whatever industry you are in or country or lifestyle. Capping the amount of money that can be raised, even from a single donation levels the field special interest. Knowing who the donors are and their potential impact on the candidate’s voting record and interests helps the electorate make an informed choice.

        Yes, i am still a political idealist.

        That said, Karl Rove is infamous. It really doesn’t matter to me which candidate he supports. If i were an American, i would not vote for his candidate on principal.

      • Maguita says:

        First off, repeating “stop drinking the Kool-Aid” upon “Stop drinking the Kool-Aid” as leitmotiv to a political stance, with no apparent success, is simply proving that you are on something much worse than Kool-Aid.

        The only person in my neighborhood who keeps on telling everyone on the street, to “stop drinking the Kool-Aid” is an hysterical Meth addict.

        All her hallucinations could not be assuaged by FACTUAL documentation, that no one is drinking the f-cking Kool-Aid! Disagreeing with her, does not mean that we are disconnected from reality. Just from her hazy one.

        And I am glad that you clearly understand my point of view, that hundreds of millions of dollars, are much bigger upshot on politics today, than a measly one-shot $25 million. At least, you know how to count!

      • Maguita says:

        @LAK, yes, KARL ROVE.

        Vomiting yet? Any time his name comes up, you know it has to do with killing Americans, and making even more money off causing the deaths of more people.

    • Susan says:

      I live in the DC burbs of northern VA. I do hear about these super PAC events and am bombarded by the ads whenever I watch tv. My understanding is that its a group that can raise money from anyone (companies, individuals, professional organizations/unions) and use it for attack ads and fundraising events. They do not specifically give $ to Obama, Romney, the DNC or the RNC, but their agenda is always clear by the smear ads. The sky is the limit for Super PACS. No cap on spending. This inclusion changes the game. Corporate interests can be “addressed” without any tax issues. I love DC. Worked there for years but this game stopped being about the people awhile ago. Just my 2cents.

      • Sweettart says:

        Yes, and there isn’t the accountability in the advertising/propaganda that the official campaign or political party would have.

        I haven’t paid attention this year, but in the lead up to the 2008 election, there was a HUGE build up and investment in the online landscape on the part of the liberal promoters (I won’t say Democrats because I don’t know which entity was truly behind it.)

        A lot of new blogs and a huge phalanx of online commenters, complete community sites. A lot of money and a lot of time was spent canvasing the web and blanketing the search results.

        Add to that, in the weeks leading up to the election, the pay per click campaigns pushing these sites were through the roof. I have a couple of sites and I have *never* seen such high CPM rates as the days before the election.

        Look at any of the reports on the online ad spends for the fourth quarter of 2008 and you see a huge rise and then it drops off after all the election ads.

        Media influences opinion, and the 2008 election was bought and paid for. By whom? My guess would be Soros.

        But that is why all these political related posts are coming up. These are going to be the money makers in terms of ad displays when November rolls around.

    • Tiffany says:

      Super PACS are bad because they open up so much corporate spending which increases the overall cost of elections significantly. Also, congress hasn’t enacted legislation to address the Supreme Courts recommendations about disclosure.

      However, one of the biggest sources of anonymous funds (domestic and international) is the non-profit organizations. The Federal Elections Committee changed rules for these organzations, and as long as they don’t specifically tell you who to “vote” for, they can spend UNLIMTED money without ANY documentation of where the money comes from. If it is an “issues” endorsement, there are essentially no rules.

      • Susan says:

        Exactly! Non profit organizations don’t worry about taxes when the $ comes in and, in this case, when it goes back out. Most donors are unaware of this spending. Advocacy has a valid role in charity but it’s excessive lately.

  14. lucy2 says:

    I wouldn’t want to host something like that at my home, I’d much rather rent out a nice facility, but I get why she did it.

    There is way too much money in these elections. I think there should be a set, reasonable limit and that’s it – it would drastically cut down on all the annoying campaigning and would force the candidates and the people to decide based on policy and debates, rather than on who sent the prettiest fliers and ran the scariest commercials.

  15. The real jenny says:

    WAIT! Anna Wintour, ASPIRING DIPLOMAT? Is this for real? What has our country come to?

  16. buell says:

    So Anna mucked out Sara’s stalls and put down clean hay. Rich, elitist 1 percent acting idiots.

  17. Dibba says:

    She is so gross.

  18. Anna says:

    Don’t blame me. I was and am for Ron Paul, the only non-corporate owned, independent mind in politics

  19. LittleDeadGirl says:

    Was there a non celebrity at the place? I thought I saw this advertized on tv and them saying someone could win a spot? I don’t know. Either way just another party by the rich and for the rich. Who even cares?

  20. saucy says:

    this makes a lot of sense and is a really smart move on obama’s part. the conservative right has been consistently bashing women and recently threatening reproductive rights. obama responds with a benefit hosted by someone every woman can or has related to: carrie bradshaw. sjp was chosen for that reason- they probably couldnt wait to get the press coverage out there for this. smart.

    • vic says:

      Real women can relate to CARRIE BRADSHAW?!?!? That’s the funniest line of b.s. for Obama yet. Oh my goodness. At $40,000 a plate no less. Wow. Yes I’m just sitting in my apartment in New York that in, real life, a small newspaper journalist couldn’t afford, wearing all those designers shoes, sipping appletinis all day. I the average American woman can so relate. Your post was sarcasm right?

  21. Jover says:

    Right on nan and chris, tiffany you are missing the point this isn’t about rights; this is about a prez that lowers himself, for money, to muck about with celebutards, the majority of whom HAVE NEVER GRADUATED from high school. If the plumber’s local held a fund raiser for OBama it would be ignored. YOu shouldn’t be allowed out of your house, let alone vote, if you take ANY political guidance from dopes like Joy Behar or Toby Keith.
    Anne Wintour is a 17 yr. old high school dropout and she’s diplomat material. Really, then my house cat should be a consular general for Monaco.
    Unbelievable. Truthfully, and in a non partisan tone, all politicians should ignore pop culture it does them no good.

    • Tiffany says:

      Jover, you are making huge assumptions without any facts to back it up. Saying the majority of celebrities haven’t graduated from high school is such a HUGE massive stretch! Really!
      And this event wasn’t about taking political ADVICE from celebs. This was a fund raiser.

      And for all your digs on Anna Wintour, she is a billion dollar business woman! By the GOP’s standards, she should be running for President!

      • Relli says:

        Tiffany, I appreciate you are doing on these threads. More people need to learn facts rather spew hate and perpetuate half truths & lies (Nan, Jover & Chris I am looking at you).

        Its one thing to stand up for what you believe in, but its a totally different ballgame when you start bullying others on their convictions. Some of you all need to stop getting all worked up and taking everything so personal. I dont believe any of you want to live in Fascist society so take a break from being the morality police.

        EACH party is experiencing issues with money and power. You know how I know? Because when a BUSH goes on national television and says the Republican party is crazy… the end may be near.

      • Jover says:

        Please tiffany don’t lionize these people, they have little interest in you or i, name the ones that have actual scholarly academic intellectual credentials that would merit them speaking authoritively about global warming, international finance and trade, your local plumber is no worse. SO what about wintour she’s still a drop out that has ruined american fashion. WHy are you apologizing for these people. Stop going to their movies and watching the tv shows and see what happens.

      • Tiffany says:

        Jover, I am not apologizing for anyone. I just respect other citizen’s rights to participate in the election process, no matter what their profession. Anyone, whether plumber, actor, accountant, or blogger should be able to speak their mind on issues they are passionate about.

      • Maguita says:


        “Its one thing to stand up for what you believe in, but its a totally different ballgame when you start bullying others on their convictions”

        The fact of the matter is, we have tried for the past three years to act as respectful, law-abiding citizens. But it had obviously did not work. Time to realize that when dealing with an unrepentant bully, you need to become the bigger monster.

        We have moved beyond thumping on a man-made bible about “God’s law”, and had moved into a territory where facts are disregarded, and where anything different from the white straight man, has been getting his and her rights slaughtered. Just look at the states of Arizona, and Texas.

        If you look mildly Hispanic, you WILL be arrested if you don’t have your papers on you.

        If you are a very young teenage girl raped by her father, no matter the color of your skin, the doctor cannot abort your fetus, and you will have to be shown detailed x-rays of your fetus, and you will be shown detailed pictures of 50s botched abortions of dismembered aborted fully-termed fetuses.

        And if you are serving your country, as a woman, you have the right to be raped, repeatedly. And you have the right to be on-the-spot dismissed from the US Army, if you dare report your rapist.

        I don’t feel like I will be pacifically and shyly making my rights known anymore. Seeing how they have been firmly slaughtered by right wingbats touting the name of God, but acting like the spawn of evil.

      • Dusty says:

        Tiffany and Relli drank the Koolaid.

      • Tiffany says:

        Dusty, to dismiss someone with talk of “kool-aid” without bring any kind of fact to counter my argument suggests you have nothing to stand on.

        If you believe I am wrong, bring some facts and prove it. Insults aren’t respectful or productive.

      • Relli says:

        Actually Maguita, I am on your side of these issues. I just don’t like when people start slinging BS based on “Things Fox News would consider news,” its irresponsible and thinly veiled racism as far as I am concerned. The issues are more important to me than if my candidate wins. I am policy person NOT a Political Party loyalist.

        I was raised by a Republican and an Independent in a house where we were encouraged to discuss our political opinions, so long as we could back up our ideas with FACTS. So I dont care for when people start spouting ignorant statements that are not only demeaning to the President of the United States but have no merit.

        Rachel Maddow recently had a FANTASTIC episode in which, she explained the reasoning behind why unions are so important to the Democratic (as in the country not the party)Process after the victory of crazy pants Walker in WI. Its was beautifully poignant and truthfully a very scary reality of what could happen if we people truly lost our power against corporations.

        The problem is that too many people get caught up with the shiny/distracting issues like; birth certificates, Kenyan fathers, people’s religious beliefs and where they attend church (when we as a country were founded on religious freedoms!?!? Although i do find Mormonism hilarious too.), whose raising money for whom, accusing people of communism (I thought McCarthyism was dead?). THESE are exactly what they want you to focus on NOT the issues like Maguita respectfully stated.

      • Maguita says:


        I understood you were on my side, but you wanted me to behave a bit more saintly and patiently by out-waiting the ignorant rants, thinking that they could be politely swayed by EASILY-ACCESSIBLE FACTS.

        My POV in regards to this, is that our waiting for the purposely idiotic to learn and base their opinions on FACTS, has brought nothing but a more divided, and a very-much polarizing voting pond.

        If we had been much more aggressive, as aggressive at the tea party, the birthers, the wingdings from the wingright, we would not be in such an aggressively-divided atmosphere today.

        Some obviously, in hindsight, needed a firmer hand. Like children, to be severely admonished for their lack of basic respect, and uncivilized behavior (again, birthers, tea party, outright religious falsifiers).

        After a while, you realize that you are faced with sufferers of Intentional Mental Laziness, and should start dishing out badly needed medicine accordingly.

        The weirdest thing?

        The Democratic Party’s oh-so-passive attitude had been extremely akin to Christian behavior, by constantly turning the other cheek, that underlined even more notoriously the bible-thumping extremists’ lack of Christian-expected attitude!

        Thank you for your support, but we do need to rough it up a bit, shake some a bit harder with knowledge, and hopefully, with time, give courage to those who had been out-talked by more assertive wingnuts, and get them back in the game.

        Do you know how many Democrats right now are afraid to vote?

      • Tiffany says:

        Relli, thanks for your support! I appreciate your respectful tone as well. 🙂

      • Relli says:

        @ Maguita

        “you wanted me to behave a bit more saintly and patiently by out-waiting the ignorant rants, thinking that they could be politely swayed by EASILY-ACCESSIBLE FACTS.”

        Um no not at all. But your passion is appreciated! Take that to your local DNC headquarters and run with it girl!

      • Maguita says:

        Then I apologize for the misunderstanding @Relli.

        Have a good one!

    • lucy2 says:

      Politicians, regardless of party, are going to go where the big bucks and big ticket donors are. If a plumbers local held a fundraiser for Romney (or Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Gore, McCain, etc) it would be ignored too. To think otherwise, or that only one person or party do so, is naive.

      By the way, I think most of the people listed in attendance are college graduates. Not that it matters – there are people in all different careers and businesses who didn’t finish high school or didn’t go on to higher education. Anyone who works hard and makes a good life for themselves gets my respect, and (ideally) everyone has an equal voice.

  22. nan says:

    I find it amazing that people purposely forget that Obama grew up in a communist household and him and his family attended Rev. Wright’s church for years who spewed hatred of America. He conveniently dumped Wright under the bus when he became president. Rev. Wright was and still is furious at Obama. A man who grew up hating America is now president. Unbelievable!!

    • Tiffany says:

      He didn’t grow up in a communist household, his grandfather was a WWII veteran and he lived with him for much of his young life.

      I am surprised how many people take the word of such sketchy sources when Obama’s life has been so well documented. He is not a communist, and those that think he is either do not know the definition of the word, or they have not paid any attention to what Obama stands for.

    • Relli says:

      Nan nothing in that statement is true, your just being hateful.

    • Maguita says:

      Perfect! We’re speaking cockatoo now.

      I’ve always been open to learning new languages. So please, let me giv’er a try.

      I always thought, that living in a communist household was so much better than living in one where you are taught to believe, that when we die, we go away to STAR Kolob, where you can live alone, and opt to never have your wife stay with you after she also dies. Maybe you’ll also be eating happily pink cotton candy for the rest of eternity.

      And living in a household where you yearn for the day where you are finally on that star, far-far-away, gives you apparently the right to forcefully baptize YOUR OWN DEAD KIN, posthumous no less, into the Mormon faith. No matter if he’s been dead over 20 years, and he was a KNOWN published atheist.

      So if you think for one nanosecond, that because you don’t like what the extreme-right has been calling a “communist black man from Kenya”, holding the presidential office function to be re-elected, you will vote for an imbecilic ball-less billionaire, an elitist twit with hairdresser tendencies (how gay), who will have absolutely no qualms forcing his FAITH ON YOU, because obviously, what’s a few strangers when compared to your own KIN, than you DO deserve to have all your American-based rights and Freedoms taken away from you.

      And to be sent to Kolob to live happily ever after, in never-never land.

      You know, Kolob, that is right about south-east of Xenu.

      Why are some so allergic to fact checking? I’ve started kidding by speaking cockatoo, but f-ck me, I based my cockatoo on documented facts!

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I see Maguita’s kicking ass and taking names as usual!

      • nan says:

        I would have voted for Herman Cain or even Colin Powell if he ran. It’s NOT the color of skin that I vote for, though 99% of blacks vote for black no matter what they stand for. I think it was Morgan Freeman who said “I don’t like Obama, but I’ll vote for him because he’s black”.

        Attending Rev. Wright’s church with his family for so many years says ALOT about him and Michelle (who can forgot when she said, “All This for a Flag” when honoring an American holiday. The American Flag stand for Freedom, which the Obamas do not get!!
        And I think its disgraceful what Rev. Wright has to say in church about our beloved country? Absolutely disgraceful!!! Yet the Obamas attended his church for years with their children!!

      • Maguita says:


        Calling Obama a Communist yet in the next breath accusing him of being under the influence of a religious freak. Oh you Cockatoo Whisperer you!

        Shouldn’t we admire Obama and his family even more, BECAUSE OF ATTENDING THAT REV. nutjob’s services for so long, yet Obama STILL fought for what is right, what is equal, and what is fair for All Americans, no matter their race, ethnic background, gender, and sexual orientation? Notwithstanding what his reverend’s beliefs were!

        He gave as much as the very right-leaning House majority had allowed him to give.

        He even fought hard so you can have access to medical treatments when needed, so you won’t be under the OBLIGATION of over-paying “health-insurance” companies’ premiums, but STILL getting refused treatment. He gave the choice for parents not to see their children suffer needlessly because they don’t have the means for medical care.

        I don’t know how to translate this in cockatoo, obviously, you are more the cockatoo whisperer than I am, but you need to start checking your facts, and no, THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT JESUS HAD SAID TO YOUR REVEREND OR MISGUIDED REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT FACT, and start thinking about what is best for you.

        And if at the end of your research, you think it is best to vote for Romney, then please, do assume completely your decision, and do not cry later that Iranian women today have more rights than you do, and that your female dog has better access to health and protection.

      • mayamae says:

        This religion also states that a woman can ONLY attain the highest level of heaven if a man pulls her up. Misogyny at it’s best.

        If you think forced baptism of dead relatives is bad – how about when they baptized Holocaust victims. People who died for their religion – being forcefully baptized out of their own religion.

        This is the religion that said the ONLY way a black person can go to heaven is as a SERVANT. Native-Americans were animals.

        This church heavily funds anti-equal rights for homosexuals.

        Conclusion – unless you are a white straight man, you don’t want this guy anywhere near your rights.

      • Maguita says:

        Thank you @OriginalKitten!

        People reading this particular thread would think, boy, the girl has imagination. Planet Kolob. But if they google Kolob, they would soon understand that it is of the utmost importance in Mormon faith, and further more, @mayamae explains the woman’s station in most of today’s Mormon households.

    • Janet says:

      You probably believe he was born in Kenya too. Keep drinking that tea.

    • Lucinda says:

      See this is the problem. You take something that is accurate ( he did have a close relationship with Reverend Wright, a questionable character at best) and combine it with something completely untrue (he’s a communist), therefore destroying any credibility you might have. There are some very legitimate criticisms of our President regarding both his policies and his ethics but they get lost in stupid, inflammatory rhetoric. Knock it off. Please!

  23. annaloo. says:

    But what did they EAT at SJP’s house?????! Hay and apples??

  24. Maya says:

    Does anyone else find it kind of funny that the US Weekly piece refers to the president as “Barack”? I don’t know; that just seems a bit strange to me. Sorry US Weekly, but I don’t think you’re on a first name basis with President Obama.

  25. daisie says:

    SJP and family can’t take a step outside their door without having papparazi swarm them. She always appears smiling and gracious regardless if she is taking her kids to school in the early morning or if she’s headed to a “red carpet.” Instead of fighting this situation of constant publicity about NOTHING she has used it as a way to shed light on her political causes.

    NYC townhouses are about 25′ wide. In order to have 50 people standing in such a space furniture will have to be removed.

  26. Trish says:

    Barrit Obamney…how’s that for a play on two names. Neither on is any better…both are corporate puppets. The bills that have been passed these past couple of years are horrifying..slowly eating away at our freedoms…drones, pat downs….raiding organic farms…GMOs….. if we don’t wake up, hopefully by the next election, it’s too late for this one….I truly fear for any remaining freedoms.

    • TheOriginalTiffany says:

      Thank you Trish!

      Some fail to see that the candidates are just the puppets of banking, lobbyists, Monsanto and big,pharmacy.

      The financial sector and the banks that led everyone down the road are to blame. Both parties are so f’ed up. I just want to start all over.

      I cant get with either of the big two anymore. I’m going independent.

    • Brianna says:

      Exactly Trish. I can’t see myself voting this upcoming election because with Obama and Romney being my only choices, America is screwed anyway so there really is no point choosing one or the other.

  27. kiyoshigirl says:

    Sorry, I voted for Obama, but these high priced dinners are pissing me off. The guy needs to get out on the street and meet with folks who can hardly afford to pay $5 for a dinner, but that’s never going to happen. Face it, we’re all alone in this. The big boys (bankers and ubber wealthy) have access and control. We, on the other hand, have lives that are only remnants of what they used to be.

    • Maguita says:

      He did, in Iowa 2 nights ago. This is more of a gossip site, so it is normal that they show only gossip-related politics.

      Hopefully, we’ll get more about both sides, even is celebrities are not always included…

    • Tiffany says:

      He does do small fundraisers…but because of the changing election fundraising laws in our country, he NEEDS to get large donations in order to be competitive. Media doesn’t cover those events as much, though.

      Sadly, I think this election cycle will cost about $1 billion per campaign beause of Citizens United and the FEC laws about non-profits. This fall, I fear there will be no ad space available on tv for anything but political ads.

  28. GirlyGirl says:

    Anna Wintour looks like a troll doll.

  29. Clark says:

    Just another no-talent Hollywood hack sucking up to the most incompetent person to ever hold public office.
    It’s not as if any of these ‘important’ people would give any winner of a ridiculous contest the time of day anyway.

  30. Lucinda says:

    So glad our president is getting approval from people who completely understand the problems us real folks are facing. I mean if those Hollywood folks support him, he must be doing a great job!

  31. Julie says:

    im also not a fan of dishing out so much money for a campaign. its more showbusiness than politics.

    im not american but do i see it right when i have the impression that most of hollywood actors are left wingers? (well we will never know for sure, lets say “portray themselves as left wingers”) besides country singers i never heard of a hollywood right winger.

  32. Julie says:

    one more thing. i was always against george bush but i cant see why people now support obama. he seems to be even worse. he is leading the same wars, guantanamo is still going strong, hundreds of civilians were killed by drone attacks, the usa still dont accept the rights of other sovereign states, its not just afghanistan and iraq, its also in yemen and somalia.

    the only difference is that obama got a noble peace prize for that.

    so really if you were against bush why are you for obama? that doesnt make sense.

    Quote”Obama has launched over 250 drone attacks during his three years in office, more than six times as many as the lawless yahoo Bush ordered during his entire presidency. And to say Obama launched them is not merely a figure of speech; a lengthy New York Times story last week detailed how the president personally approves the target of every attack at cozy little White House meetings known as Terror Tuesdays.”

    • lucy2 says:

      To me, the difference is in the method. The Obama admin.’s method to combat terrorists is mainly drone attacks, whereas the Bush admin.’s was mainly the Iraq invasion. If you’re going to talk civilian deaths, the invasion was VASTLY more costly to civilian lives, well over 100,000, plus thousands of US soldier deaths (and many, many more wounded). Certainly neither is perfect, but I don’t know that it’s right to compare drone to drone and ignore the Iraq war.
      Also, anytime a new leader goes into office while the nation is at war, the fact is they are going to be leading the same wars that their predecessor did. Also should be noted that the Iraq war officially ended in December 2011.

      • Kim says:

        Just as many if not more civilians & military personel have been killed since Obama was President than Bush. Your facts are totally incorrect.

        Lets face its to the family of a civilian child killed or the family of an American military person killed overseas the method is the same.

  33. Nicolette says:

    Just curious. What do politicians do with all the money they raise for their campaigns? Is there any accounting of those funds? Our current “president” received unprecedented amounts in the ’08 elections. Was all of it spent? Whose pockets get lined with that money?

    As for SJP, her support of him makes me just want to take my “Sex And The City” dvds and toss them in the trash. Just another liberal elitist telling us to do as they say, not as they do.

    • Kim says:

      Exactly. Ill never be able to watch Sex & The City again. These celebs are so out of touch its pathetic!

  34. Dena says:

    Someone mentioned that African Americans only voted for President Obama because he is black. I guess then that Presidents Clinton and Carter are African American as well because they also received the majority black vote. As a group and as a voting block, African Americans are predominantly democratic.

    Then again, I guess the only reason people voted for Kerry is because he is white

    • Kim says:

      Be realistic. Obviously Obama being African American got him alot more African American votes.

  35. TXCinderella says:

    I’d tell Anna to bite me if she said my home wasn’t good enough. Snobby b*tch!

  36. Kim says:

    BARF!!!! How well better this money could have been spent.

    How can our President justify this price when the unemployment rate is insane, people are being mortgaged out of their homes left & right and no one can afford basic health insurance. Him & Sarah and all these celebs who pay this make me sick! They are so out of touch its sickening!

  37. MJ says:

    Ms. Wintour should stop wearing sleeveless clothing. Her arms aren’t attractive. The skin is no longer supple, rather it looks like onion skin, wrinkled and almost translucent. It’s difficult to look at photos of her. Doesn’t she own a mirror? 😉 Doesn’t she see the ravages of aging? She’s reached an age where she can’t wear just anything.

  38. kellyinseattle says:

    40K a plate? She should have held it at McDonalds and stuck with the dollar menu.