Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Regales Her Financiers

By Matthew Mosk
DENVER -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private luncheon with her top donors today, an event that participants described as "nostalgic" and "uplifting."

One of those attending was Hassan Nemazee, a longtime Clinton supporter who served as co-chair of her finance effort. Nemazee was among those who made an early push for Sen. Barack Obama to consider Clinton as a running mate.

More recently, Nemazee has pledged to help Obama raise $500,000 between now and the end of September. A New York financier, Nemazee has turned fundraising into something close to an art form, opening up new sources of donations even when Clinton's campaign was running low on cash and had fallen behind in the delegate count. At today's lunch at Ellyington's restaurant in downtown Denver, guests were regaled with anecdotes and campaign trail stories from Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, former president Bill Clinton and the candidate herself. When someone asked her if, knowing the outcome, she would still have run for president, Clinton replied, "In a New York minute." "She was terrific," Nemazee said. "She lifts up the spirits of the people around her, even when they are the people who should be lifting her spirits up."

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 27, 2008; 6:13 PM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton , The Green Zone  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Did Daddy Yankee Offer To Endorse Obama?
Next: No Boring Speech Ahead from Obama

Comments

Fairfax voter, by several do you mean like two terms in the state senate (without even completing second one)? He went back to help people or he went back to launch a political career? It seems more like the latter. This from someone who plans to vote for Obama. I just don't see why someone would mislead people about who he is or where he always wanted to go. When you act like there is something to hide you make people think you're guilty.

Posted by: Joe | August 27, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

aBigSam,

The other side feels the same exact way too. Instead of making arguments on valid points, people feel that Obama has played the race card to defeat Hillary in South. In addition, people feel that media has unfairly tarred Clinton campaign, while coddling Obama's. Instead of soothing those feelings, all I heard so far was more of the same standoffish comments from the other side.

What needs now is for Obama to show the same graceousness that Hillary has showed yesterday. Then I may think about voting for him.

Posted by: Not sure I vote for Obama yet | August 27, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Has GW Bush has set the bar so low as to make a "community organizer" qualified to lead the free world - WTF. "

Newsflash, Obama's current employment is not as a community organizer. That was an early, though formative, job (his first one out of college was a well-paid one at IBM in Manhattan, which he left fairly quickly to work to help people and communities in Chicago). After that he was a civil rights lawyer, taught at one of the nation's top law schools (Chicago), served several terms in the Illinois state senate, racking up a long laundry list of legislative accomplishments, became a United States Senator, where he has also authored or co-authored significant measures on nuclear nonproliferation, care of wounded veterans, ethics reforms, and other issues, and wrote two enormously successful nonfiction books.

Why in the world do you think he is currently a community organizer? Or is it just fun for you to make up random things, rather than to consider political candidates and their positions with an open mind and heart?

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | August 27, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

aspergirl have a bumpersticker mentality?

Posted by: moe | August 27, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

So the Democrats would hand over the country to an inexperienced first term Senator and any tough questioning is met by a chorus of "racism". Has GW Bush has set the bar so low as to make a "community organizer" qualified to lead the free world - WTF. And the MSM - just a propaganda machine. I thought that Fox News was absurd; MSNBC doesn't even qualify as a new agency. And WaPo and the NYT - their headlines make me think that Rush and Hannity are just the flip side of the same coin.

Posted by: David | August 27, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

abigsam, do you think you can distill that down to about 3 sentences?

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 27, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Why heal the wounds?

I'm a strong Obama supporter, but even I shed some tears last night watching Hillary's speech and the tearful reaction from her supporters, many of which still maintained their conviction of not supporting Obama. Fortunately, they showed the sincere ones, not the fanatical supporters, who seemed to only have reservations about Obama on the experience issue. Why was I suddenly feeling like puting my arms around those tearful people to comfort them, even though I still disagreed with them, even though they still weren't supporting my candidate, and even though I still felt I had been wrongly abused by some of them? Today I kept thinking about it and feel I have some honest answers that can apply to both sides of our divided Democratic party.

Ever drive through town and get behind someone going 10 miles an hour below the speed limit? You would't mind that they want to go slow if they weren't so frustratingly interfering with your own agenda. That's kind of how it felt getting through the last half of the primary season. It felt like someone who couldn't win was busy trying to sabatoge things for the one who could. But that was the campaigns. What was happening here was worse.

It seemed the same people, purportedly Hillary supporters, were posting over and over that Obama was a muslim. They would also accuse him of racism or playing the race card. They kept bringing up Tony Rezko, William Ayres, and Rev. Wright. When anyone offered their take on those matters, they were dismissed as "koolaid drinkers, messiah worshipers, Obamniacs, Obamafools, and a continuing list of other dehumanizing labels intended to diminish one's opinions as invalid. It seemed that no matter what, the conversation could never be turned to the issues, nor the debate focused on the merits of the candidates. It was a blood sport that both sides got caught up in, myself included. I found myself at different times feeling so angry that I lashed out in equal or harsher terms. It seemed that neither side was willing to respect each others' feelings nor hear each others' opinions without giving in to anger. When the kitchen sink strategy began, and it seemed that the Hillary camp was so determined to take Obama out that it didn't matter if it cost us the election in the fall, both camps became even more deeply entrenched and bitter.

There's a reason we don't have all volunteer fire departments. In 1896, volunteer fire departments were every bit as much a social outlet as a civic facilitator. Different fire houses often clashed due to jealousies over who won or lost the last baseball match. One time there was a fire on the border between two precincts and both groups of fire fighters got there at the same time. An argument broke out as to who's district the fire was in. Instead of either side puting out the blaze, it burned to the ground while both factions duked it out. Laws were passed as a result to prevent future such mishaps. In this case, it's the Democratic party where both sides want validation, apologies, and to see the other side suffer for their deeds. Problem is, that is exactly what Karl Rove, George Bush, and John McCain want. Why do we got to hand it to them on a silver platter again?

Those of us who support Obama don't see an empty suit. Sure, he doesn't have as much experience as Hillary has, nor as much as John McCain. His appeal is that he seems to understand what our problems are and is willing to talk about them. We can't solve problems that we're unwilling to recognize, or acknowledge, or admit. John McCain is more interested in painting Obama up as an elitist, out of touch, a messiah, a celebrity, and anything else he can think of to avoid a real conversation about what really matters to the middle class. Barack Obama does not seem to be interested in polarizing America again. He doesn't seem to care if good answers come from the right or left, as long as they're helpful tips. When we hear "we're not red states or blue states, but the United States" we hear someone who sincerely WANTS to solve problems, not score points.

What causes resentment now is not hearing that you're not sold on Obama, but hearing what sounds like your bitterness is driving you to the other side without giving him a fair chance at winning your support. To have you still slicing and dicing him for the Republicans is still a bitter pill to swollow. If my big brother was picking on me, and someone outside the family stepped in and started beating him up, you better believe I'd be all over him in seconds.

I would rather argue with Hillary supporters over who is the better candidate between Obama and McCain. I feel I can make a reasonable case to support Obama. I would rather have that debate and be proven wrong than be called a koolaid drinker, a messiah follower, and all the other dehumanizing remarks. Can we have that debate? Can we put country first?

Posted by: aBigSAM | August 27, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company