George Clooney Interview on 'Meet the Press'

Off-topic (but then so is Amal's clothing budget), but I'm over the 'Bernie Sanders as your intelligent and articulate liberal ex-hippie grandpa' thing. I think he's as calculating a politician as there is. Yes, I believe he believes in his platform, but there's no way - NONE - that he doesn't know that it's just talk to appeal to a certain segment of voters, because if he or anybody else could get it done, it would have happened well away from an election year, and he would have the bona fides that prove he's been trying to accomplish his agenda for all the years he's been part of the system.

Anyway... he's an Independent running as a Democrat. The reason is that he knows an Independent self-proclaimed progressive socialist would get absolutely nowhere. He intentionally pitted himself as a Democrat against Clinton to garner the anti-Clinton money and media spotlight. It's all sentiment, not policy, and he knows it. The trip to the Vatican for five minutes with the pope on the Dems' big fundraiser weekend even looks suspicious to me now. Like I said, calculating.

For me as non-American who watches the whole presidential campaign from the distance this interview was really interesting.

George did explain very clear the Advantages and disadvantages of this fundraising and also made very clear that there that it should be changed - which is right in my opinion.
He also commended Sanders for his visions and ideas and that he forced Clinton to focus on more social issues. But then made clear that her international knowledge and experience is more important for him.

For me Sanders has a lot of visions which are very idealistic and - just like many aspects Trump and Cruz have on the Republican side - you absolutely know of that he won't be able to enforce.

Sanders is able to stir the young people into voting and getting involved into politics which is great. But we all know that these people will get disappointed if Sanders should become president because he won't be able to enforce his politics. He'd still have to deal with the Congress and the Opposition...

It's also easy for Sanders to critizise Clinton for her campaign and fundraising - where on the other side he also benefits from it. He's very good at selling himself as the idealistic, naive person who makes everything possible because he wants it to happen. But since he's a politician for such a long time I don't really believe this...

Thank you, Way2, exactly right! He ran as a Dem for the money and attention, yet refuses to participate in paying some of that back. He complains about the superdelegate system "rigging" the process for Hillary, yet his campaign manager is the person who designed it. He's the first to say he "marched with Dr. King", yet in his 30 years in politics he has not one significant piece of civil rights legislation to his name. His answer to every question about every issue is "We've gotta break up the banks!", yet when asked how he'd do that, he couldn't answer. This was never a serious campaign for president, just a way to get his ideas in front of a larger audience. That's fine, he's not the first or the last to do that. But now its time to step aside, if only to put a stop the the increasingly frequent misogyny coming from his supporters, that I've frankly had my fill of. Hillary's going to face enough of that from the other side, she shouldn't be taking friendly fire now.

Carolhathaway - You have a  better understanding of our politics than many Americans. Too bad you can't vote here!

Missa - Bernie is reverting to type. His inner politician is coming out. I just watched him on CBS This Morning and he thinks he has a good chance to win here and nationally if voter turnout is high.

They used the "Meet the Press" clip of George explaining why fundraising is necessary. Bernie said he thinks getting money in many small doses can bring in as much as going to the 1% for large donations. He said you don't have to change the law - just get many individual small donations and avoid traditional fund raising.

When asked if he would give financial support for down-ticket candidates in the party he said he would, not that he has. He says he has sent out many fundraising letters for colleagues and raised "millions". Not specific and not necessarily recent. He does however have a complete and up-to-date grasp of all the polling data.

I've been around a long time and this is the first time I've been so disgusted by the field of candidates. I do like Hillary, but I'm not sure how successful she'll be if she gets elected. IMO her major asset is her husband. Between the two of them they might just get this country back on track again.

Missa,
there are politicians like him in many other countries including mine. They critizise every decision and say that there's one person or group if people who's responsible for everything that doesn't work. They promise to change everything but can't tell you how they want to realize it.

And the worst is: There are many people who really believe them and vote for them! And when they're elected and don't fulfill all their premises it's always the fault of other politicians and / or the establishment...

Thanks Lizzy,
I guess I do understand some of it because it's quite similar to the election process in Germany. We're going to have Bundestag elections in September 2017 which neans that for the next 1,5 years no important decisions will be made

My concern at this point is Hillary's unfavorable poll numbers.  They have increased over the course of this campaign and I feel Bernie's rhetoric has played a big part in moving those numbers.  Her unfavs are second only to Trump's.

And now many of Bernie's supporters are claiming that they won't vote for her if she is the nominee.  

Sanders' campaign has made Hillary a better and stronger candidate.  But at this point he is doing real harm to her credibility and viability to win against Trump by attacking her more directly than he had at the beginning of the campaign.  And Sanders' accusations against her are resonating with his supporters.  It goes beyond friendly fire.  

He should get out but he won't.  He's going all the way to California.  I think it's reckless and irresponsible on his part to be damaging the Democrats' opportunity to hold onto the White House.

Come the general election Trump is going to slam Hillary hard.  Really hard.  My reasonable voice says of course Hillary will win in a general election but that means that Democrats will need to come out in huge numbers to vote.  But now I wonder how Sanders' campaign against her will impact that turnout ...

I'm actually not that concerned about Hillary versus Trump or any Republican, for that matter. Trump has gained very few followers as time has passed, even with other candidates dropping out, and has rarely gotten more than 35-40% in the primaries, which in the grand scheme of things is a very small number of people. Basically, with Trump, either you're already on board or you probably aren't going to be. He has extraordinarily high unfavorables with women (72%) and black voters (91%), as well as other minority groups and, I would assume, sane people (100%). His base is white men, and there just aren't enough of them in the electorate anymore. I can imagine a situation in which moderate Republicans put off by Trump and Cruz vote for Hillary. In fact, I've heard this very thing from several moderate Republican women that I know. If given the choice between voting for a raging misogynist or the first woman president, they're going with latter. Even Laura Bush seemed to signal she would like to see Hillary win. Honestly though, I'm not sure it'll even come to that. I expect the GOP to take the nomination from Trump at the convention, at which point Hillary can just go home, make a sandwich, and put her feet up, because Trump will burn the whole party to the ground on his way out.

In my opinion there are a few options, concentrating on Clinton and Sanders on the Democratic side and Trump and Cruz on the Republican:

Three out of the four candidates seem to have quite controversial / progressive ideas which would be Sanders, Trump and Cruz. So if one of these three would be the candidate for his/her party would all members elect them? Or would they vote for the other candidate? Would any of them (i.g. Sanders) get the people to sign up for voting?

I guess there's a number of members who will vote for their candidate no matter who he/she is and what he/she stands for. But there will be a number of members who decide on the candidate and maybe decide to vote for the other one or not vote at all.

And your system is yet so different to ours that I can't really think it through. To compare it with Germany I can't even think of jzst having two political parties. Here everybody who's 18 (or 16 for some local elections) and has a German passport and is not sentenced to prison is allowed to vote without registration. We vote on a Sunday so that as many people as possible can go, and we don't elect our chancellor directly. We vote for our local members of the parliament plus for the political party. Every party also sets lists in every federal state with the candidates. So we've gor around 280 members who got the majority in their area and the same number who come from the list of their party in tgeir federal state. 

For my area the candidate who's elected directly is a member of the Social Democratic Party (and our Vice Chancellor). The candidate from the Christian Party (=Conservatives) also joined the parliament because he had a high number on his list, and so did a member of our Green Party. So in the end our area is represented by three Members of Parliament which isn't bad at all. And I wouldn't describe this system as easy...

Simplifying the voting process here will hopefully be on the agenda of the next president. Only if its a Democrat, of course, because Republicans have gone out of their way to pass state laws to make it harder for people to vote. I would love for Election Day to be either a national holiday or in the weekend. Ideally, voting could occur over several days, to keep the lines manageable and give as many people as possible a chance to get out there.

To answer your first question, I think this election is different from previous ones for a lots of reasons. Usually you can count on Republicans voting for their nominee and Democrats voting for theirs, and its the independents that candidates try to win over. This year, the Republican front runner isn't really a Republican, a Democratic candidate isn't really a Democrat, and Ted Cruz wants to shut down the government and replace it with the Evangelical Christian Church. I can see Sanders supporters voting for Trump over Hillary. I can see Republican moderates voting for Hillary over Trump or Cruz. I honestly don't think polls are going to tell us very much about anything this year, and I think this election will result in a complete shift in our two party system. It's kind of bananas over here right now.

Missa - I hope you're right about Hillary, but I don't think it's going to be that easy. Even if Trump loses the nomination, is he going to just shut up and go away? Or is he going to bad mouth everyone running and screw up the election as much as he can? And is Bernie going to throw his support to Hillary if he loses? Will he tell his supporters to vote for her, or will he screw over the Democratic party? I'm not sure where his loyalties lie, or if he is like Trump - only loyal to himself. Your analysis of the situation is brilliant, but I think you might be a tad optimistic.

I hate this election!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, I know for sure this is going to be one of the ugliest, most brutal campaigns ever, certainly in my lifetime. But I think Hillary is so far handling him perfectly, which is to refuse to comment on personal insults. The big mistake the GOP candidates made was not realizing that you can't out-bully a bully, so don't bother trying. As long as she continues to make her case to the American public, and he continues to call names and shout insults, it becomes increasingly clear who is better suited for the Oval Office. I also think that Trump has never really had to face an attack from his opponents, mostly because they all believe the same things he does, and couldn't risk alienating his supporters. Hillary's been taking punches from the right for 30 years; I'm pretty confident in her ability to handle it now. Plus the media has been coming down harder on and expecting more in terms of policy and ideas from Trump, which is part of why he's falling apart. Any debate will show just how unprepared he is, and that she is the most qualified candidate by a country mile. I don't necessarily think its a lock, because both Clintons have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot, and if there's any sort of economic disaster or terrorist attack that changes the math immensely. But I'm not terribly worried. And I'm with you, if November could come tomorrow I'd be happy.

I think if Trump doesn't get the nomination he and his supporters are going to cause a ruckus.  A big one.  His supporters are already angry with the "system".  It will be ugly.

This election year is so crazy.  And I'm completely bewildered and embarrassed by people in our country who could support such a divisive and hateful person.  So I'm not sure what to expect from the rest of this election cycle.

I do think Sanders will get behind Hillary in the end.  But even if he tells his supporters to vote for her I'm not sure they will fall in line at all.  He will be partly to blame for that.

Whether Trump gets the nomination or Cruz does they are both extremists who don't deserve to get anywhere near the Oval Office.  They are very dangerous for our country.

Yes Missa, Hillary is the only truly qualified and sane candidate in this sea of mostly misfits.  She should win by a landslide.  I can only hope .....  I need to have my faith restored in the people in this country.

I think at this point all we can do is hope and pray that people with good judgement and common sense can see that Hillary is the best choice we have.

annemarie wrote:I think at this point all we can do is hope and pray that people with good judgement and common sense can see that Hillary is the best choice we have.

I'm really glad that we seem to agree on that. When I read comments on German news websites it's usually 'Trump is the only choice' or - if it's about the Democratic candidates -  'Sanders is much better than Hillary and our press is always reporting 'pro-Hillary'. They usually don't understand that winning in the smaller states doesn't make you a winner

I somehow get the impression that they are the same people who discuss shooting refugees to keep them away from borders...

Carolhathaway - Thank you for your perspective on all of this. Our media almost never covers how the rest of the world sees us. I'd love to know what the rest of the world thinks of the candidates and our election process, but don't have the time to search the web to find out. Your posts are very informative. Thanks again.

Lizzy,
you're welcome!

I just told my husband how much I enjoy to read your commentsand share my thoughts with you...

One thought just came to my mind:
Have you ever seen articles about a charity event like a ball joined by many celebrities?
It's usually many pictures of the designer dresses everybody wore, the beautiful decoration at a luxury resort or hotel, tge delicious food cooked by one of the best chefs... and about one sentence what the event was about and how much money they made for it.
I usually think after reading: "Why doesn't everybody who wants to donate and participate in this issue just give the money they had to pay fod the tickets, the dresses (if they weren't given to them for free)? They would make as much money without having to organize everything."

Because the focus on these events is not the issue but to be in the public eye, about vanity. To be seen, to be reported etc.

Isn't that crazy?

Carolhathaway - Great minds think alike! I was thinking the same thing while I read about the fundraiser kerfuffle. They'd do just as well without the dinners and could save the cost of the events as well. But then the guests wouldn't be able to say they had dinner with Hillary and George or Trump or whoever. And if they didn't have the big charity galas they wouldn't have the chance to get all decked out and show off their fancy clothes and jewels.

It bothers me when someone extremely wealthy asks the rest of us to donate money to their cause. I'm sure it's well intentioned but I can't help thinking how much easier it is for them than for most of us. The cost of one dinner from their table could equal a weeks groceries for many of the people they're are asking for money.

Doesn't mean the causes aren't worthy, and doesn't mean I don't donate when I support the cause. But it does bother me.

I run a small catering company on the side, and we were just booked to do a 10th anniversary fundraiser for a ministry that collects and distributes school supplies and toiletries to poor villages in Cape Verde. They're spending over $7000 just on food, never mind the rental of the space, the live entertainment, etc. You might say they'd be better off just putting that money back into pencils and shampoo rather than spending it in a fancy night out. But if they get the turn out they expect, they'll likely raise $30,000; they'll have the opportunity to show off the work they've done in these communities to the people who've been funding it; and they'll consider the evening a thank you for those who have donated through the years and kept the ministry running. And they'll get some publicity from the local news outlets, so when someone is thinking of donating money or time to a worthy cause in the future, they might just think of this ministry. Long story short, I think you can apply this same logic to why celebrities and other wealthy people hold big events to fundraise, rather than just write a check. Why did George do those telethons for charity? He could have just quietly donated, and personally called friends to encourage them to donate as well. The publicity multiplies your own personal donation, or at least that's the hope.

Missa - Point taken, and I agree with what you said in theory. I do understand that there are benefits to holding these events. Even so, though it may not be logical, it still makes me uncomfortable.

Missa,
thanks for the explanation!
I know that that's how it works but it still sometimes feels uncomfortable for me. 
We have an annual event nearby my home, and they collect money to support a home where parents and siblings can live while their child gets medical treatment at the pediatric clinic nearby when they've got cancer or suffer from another disease. This news coverage inspired many others to give money to this which of course helps a lot.

I myself did benefit from it because my kids were very premature born babies and had to stay in that clinic for more than six months. So after a while where my husband anx I had driven about 100 miles every day to be there we decided that I would move to that home, and it was absolutely fantastic! I'm still very thankful for tgat and we donate money to this home every year...

Carolhathaway - We have an organization like that, too - Ronald McDonald House. I'm so glad there was an organization like that to help you get through what must have been really difficult times. I hope the children are strong and well now.

I just have mixed feelings about this. I suppose it is, in part, a personal issue. I have a cousin whose daughter has a rare condition for which there is treatment, but no cure. Twice a year I get a mass-mailling letter pretending to be a personal note asking for donations to fund research. The final paragraph then usually goes on to detail my cousin's latest vacation to Europe or Hawaii or China or some other place that I can't afford to go. If she can afford all that, she doesn't need my money.

  I see the need for fundraisers, yet I still think much of the money spent to raise money might sometimes be better spent.

PS - Apologies for getting so far off topic.

Lizzy,
thanks, my kids still have some problems but nothing life-threatening anymore. We had a very hard time for several years, but now they're 14 and most of the problems we have now are due to puberty
We hope for the next years...

We've got Ronald McDonald houses near quute a few pediatruc clinics but this one started before McDonalds started building these houses in Germany. It was initialized by parents, who lived too far away to visit their kids every day and so knew exactly what parents need when sitting next to their childrens bed 15 hours every day...

McDonalds could finance their houses without donations, I guess. In Germany they have donation boxes in every restaurant. And I do understand your mixed feelings about your cousin's mails. It does feel strange to ask other for financial support and going on expensive vacations...

But yes, we're off topic! Sorry for starting that!

party animal - not! wrote:Here's the full interview:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you Frenchiesfans..........

Thanks PAN for posting the whole thing.....It was interesting, I can't grasp it all, it's all so different depending on locations.....

It helped that I watching a  4 part documentary on the BBC a couple of weeks ago (I'd imagine still available on catch-up, see link)....It was called Inside Obama's White House....a fly on the wall docu....It was so interesting, an eye opener...  I had imagined that he'd not lived up to his promise....This programme showed in detail things aren't always as they seem from the outside....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Having said that...I wish this had not included George....He jumps in which is commendable....but he looks battle weary.....A hand on the shoulder and the words another battle, another day...may have been wise, if unheaded....

People only grasp 50% of the story...and this comes across as a paradox.....