As Clinton asks for cash, campaign pitch remains a mystery

[webfact]

As Clinton asks for cash, campaign pitch remains a mystery

By LISA LERER

 

PROVINCETOWN, Mass. (AP) — It was a very busy, very lucrative weekend for Hillary Clinton in the summer playground of the East Coast's moneyed elite.

 

She brunched with wealthy backers at a seaside estate in Nantucket, snacking on shrimp dumplings and crab cakes. A few hours later, she and her husband dined with an intimate party of 30 at a secluded Martha's Vineyard estate. And on Sunday afternoon, she joined the singer Cher at a "LGBT summer celebration" on the far reaches of Cape Cod.

 

By Sunday evening, Clinton had spoken to more than 2,200 campaign donors. But what she told the crowds remains a mystery.

 

Clinton has refused to open her fundraisers to journalists, reversing nearly a decade of greater transparency in presidential campaigns and leaving the public guessing at what she's saying to some of her most powerful supporters.

 

It's an approach that differs from the Democratic president she hopes to succeed. Since his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama has allowed reporters traveling with him into the backyards and homes of wealthy donors to witness some of his remarks.

 

While reporters are escorted out of Obama's events before the start of the juicier Q&A, the president's approach offers at least a limited measure of accountability that some fear may disappear when Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump moves into the White House.

 

"Unfortunately these things have a tendency to ratchet down," said Larry Noble, the general counsel of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. "As the bar gets lower, it's hard to raise it again."

 

Clinton's campaign does release limited details about her events, naming the hosts, how many people attended and how much they gave. That's more than Trump, whose far fewer fundraisers are held entirely away from the media, with no details provided.

 

Even some Democrats privately acknowledge that Clinton's penchant for secrecy is a liability, given voters' continued doubts about her honesty.

 

While Clinton will occasionally take questions from reporters at campaign stops, she has not held a full-fledged news conference in more than 260 days — nearly nine months. Trump has held several news conferences.

 

Clinton refuses to release the transcripts of dozens of closed-door speeches she delivered to companies and business associations after leaving the State Department in 2013, despite significant bipartisan criticism.

 

And since announcing her presidential bid in April 2015, Clinton has held around 300 fundraising events. Only around five have been open to any news coverage.

 

"It does feed this rap about being secretive and being suspicious," said GOP strategist Whit Ayers.

 

Clinton's aides have promised for weeks that greater access to her events will be coming soon. But Trump's lack of disclosure about his fundraisers has given her political cover to keep the doors closed, particularly as she conducts a period of intense fundraising before the final sprint to Election Day.

 

The White House on Monday declined to pressure the Clinton campaign to follow its practice of allowing reporters to cover a portion of the president's remarks at some fundraisers.

 

"Each of the candidates is allowed to make their own case about what kind of value they place on transparency and what steps they're prepared to take to be transparent," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "President Obama has clearly made this a priority. And he hopes that subsequent presidents will as well."

 

While Clinton is expected to make only two public appearances before the end of August, she and her top backers will mingle with donors at no fewer than 54 events, according to a fundraising schedule obtained by The Associated Press.

 

Reporters covering these events wait outside, in vans, parking lots and vacant guesthouses — even at homes they've entered with Obama at previous events. In Provincetown on Sunday, five reporters crowded into the corner of a parking lot as they tried to catch Clinton's speech to about 1,000 supporters.

 

The candidate could faintly be heard running through her standard stump speech.

 

During a Saturday fundraiser at a stately Martha's Vineyard estate, faint cheers could be heard as Clinton addressed 700 donors on a green lawn overlooking the water. Staffers instructed drivers to roll up the windows of vans where reporters waited before being ushered into a nearby guesthouse.

 

What a candidate tells rich donors has long been a subject of speculation in American politics, partly because the message can be different than what they offer voters.

 

Obama is still haunted by a comment he made at a 2008 fundraiser in San Francisco, calling voters in small-town Pennsylvania "bitter" and saying they cling to "guns or religion." He learned a lesson: At events during his 2012 campaign, staffers set up a table where guests were expected to check their cellphones before entering. Clinton has tried to ban tweeting, Instagram and other forms of social media at some events.

 

Four years ago, a waiter recorded and leaked remarks GOP nominee Mitt Romney made at a closed Florida fundraiser about the "47 percent" of voters who are dependent on government and would vote for Obama "no matter what." After his convention, Romney started opening his fundraisers to the media to grab headlines, especially on days when he had no other public appearances.

___

Keep track on how much Clinton and Trump are spending on television advertising, and where they're spending it, via AP's interactive ad tracker. http://elections.ap.org/content/ad-spending

___

Josh Lederman contributed to this report from Washington.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-08-23

[Inn Between]

She's telling them not to worry because she will be the most loyal guardian of the very rich the US has ever know. She's assuring her many filthy rich buddies that the status quo will remain the same -- the economic slavery of the public and destruction of middle-class America will go on stronger than ever. Clearly what she's telling her rich and ultra-elite Wall St. friends is nothing the voters would ever accept  -- and will never know. How anyone can trust the Clintons is beyond me. Unfortunately, the other choice of POTUS candidates is scary and preposterous. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Inn Between

[Boon Mee]

Her campaign remains a mystery as she's all out of ideas - just more scandals appearing every day.

There are 15 thousand newly discovered emails the FBI has and it's not looking good for Grandma...

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/

Edited August 22, 2016 by Boon Mee

[Rancid]

As far as I was aware Hillary had the biggest war-chest in the history of out planet, and that's without even counting the dodgy Clinton foundation. Billionaires are lining up to donate to Hillary & invest in the rape of the US and their profitable future.

 

Liked the story the other day about her using her private jet to fly all of 20 miles to a Rothschild fundraiser. Hillary, standing up for the little guy.

 

Then we have the drum roll awaiting Trumps financial records, huge debts anticipated. Must be hard for Americans to choose between two such choices, perhaps comes down to the lesser of evils.

[helpisgood]

49 minutes ago, Rancid said:

As far as I was aware Hillary had the biggest war-chest in the history of out planet, and that's without even counting the dodgy Clinton foundation. Billionaires are lining up to donate to Hillary & invest in the rape of the US and their profitable future.

 

Liked the story the other day about her using her private jet to fly all of 20 miles to a Rothschild fundraiser. Hillary, standing up for the little guy.

 

Then we have the drum roll awaiting Trumps financial records, huge debts anticipated. Must be hard for Americans to choose between two such choices, perhaps comes down to the lesser of evils.

 

Rancid has said:

 

"Must be hard for Americans to choose between two such choices, perhaps comes down to the lesser of evils.”

 

What's the answer to Clinton's cash and Trump's wealth?

 

Vote third party!  During every presidential election is the same nonsense about choosing the lesser of two evils as the two major parties make it more and more difficult for a third-party candidate to compete effectively. 

 

The Republicans and Democrats don't want another Ross Perot or whomever in their general election debates.  The major parties have wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters (they were letting third-party candidates appear!), and it's now run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, owned and operated by the two major parties. 

 

So now, a third-party candidate needs to be at 15% in the polls to be allowed in the debates.  There's a catch-22, viz., for such a candidate to get to that number, the debates is the most viable way to do so.  It's funny that the media, during the nomination process, could allow ten Republican candidates to appear in one debate on one stage and even hold a separate debate for the remaining candidates despite the fact that most of them were way below 15%.  Some were even at 0-2%.  It's an obvious hypocrisy!

 

Meanwhile, the USA goes around the world demanding other countries to become democracies.  "Do what I say, not what I do" is the subtext. 

 

This "lesser than two evils" choice perennially offered by the two major parties is a form of extortion.  And, after every election, the two parties are going to tighten their grip more and more.  They don't want another Bernie to disrupt their coronations.  With such horrible voting choices, it's time for the American people to send a message and say "No!" with a third-party vote. 

Edited August 23, 2016 by helpisgood

[Stargeezr]

I think that America is already sorry that Bernie is no longer

in the election for the next President. Donald Trump

scares a lot of people, and I have talked with lots of

other Americans who are totally scared by Hillary

Clinton as well.  Bernie would have likely been President

for only 4 years, or for sure only two terms, but now

the US people will have to decide who would be the best

for them and the net four years.

  In Canada we have enough troubles with our PM and

in Alberta, with the NDP in power until the next

Federal and provincial elections. I hope that we can all

survive what we voted for.

  Not only should people be careful what the wish for, they should

be very careful for who they vote for

Geezer

[LPCustom69]

20 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

Rancid has said:

 

"Must be hard for Americans to choose between two such choices, perhaps comes down to the lesser of evils.”

 

What's the answer to Clinton's cash and Trump's wealth?

 

Vote third party!  During every presidential election is the same nonsense about choosing the lesser of two evils as the two major parties make it more and more difficult for a third-party candidate to compete effectively. 

 

The Republicans and Democrats don't want another Ross Perot or whomever in their general election debates.  The major parties have wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters (they were letting third-party candidates appear!), and it's now run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, owned and operated by the two major parties. 

 

So now, a third-party candidate needs to be at 15% in the polls to be allowed in the debates.  There's a catch-22, viz., for such a candidate to get to that number, the debates is the most viable way to do so.  It's funny that the media, during the nomination process, could allow ten Republican candidates to appear in one debate on one stage and even hold a separate debate for the remaining candidates despite the fact that most of them were way below 15%.  Some were even at 0-2%.  It's an obvious hypocrisy!

 

Meanwhile, the USA goes around the world demanding other countries to become democracies.  "Do what I say, not what I do" is the subtext. 

 

This "lesser than two evils" choice perennially offered by the two major parties is a form of extortion.  And, after every election, the two parties are going to tighten their grip more and more.  They don't want another Bernie to disrupt their coronations.  With such horrible voting choices, it's time for the American people to send a message and say "No!" with a third-party vote. 

I think 10% should get you into the debate.

[abrahamzvi]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Her campaign remains a mystery as she's all out of ideas - just more scandals appearing every day.

There are 15 thousand newly discovered emails the FBI has and it's not looking good for Grandma...

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/

Do you know what is in the undisclosed mails? How do you know it doesn't bode well for Hillary?

[Rob13]

As seen in the past, the press causes her alot of stress which brings on the seizures. Nothing surprising going on, just more ratcheting down the transparency.

[Scotwight]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investigation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

Edited August 23, 2016 by Scotwight

[Scotwight]

14 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

Do you know what is in the undisclosed mails? How do you know it doesn't bode well for Hillary?

New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/

[Chicog]

Quote

Also included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange in which Band urged Abedin to get the Clinton State Department to intervene in order to obtain a visa for members of the Wolverhampton (UK) Football Club, one of whose members was apparently having difficulty because of a “criminal charge.”

 

OK that's enough.

LOCK HER UP!
LOCK HER UP!