Hillary’s “Women Only” Event a Flop, Men Allowed to Increase Numbers
“Look, I’m a woman!” campaign strategy may not be working
Hillary is putting the majority of her campaign eggs in one basket, and that may prove to be a mistake. As I’ve noted previously, she is banking on her potentially historic role as the first woman president to clear the way for the nomination. Indeed, when asked about her achievements, her supporters can’t name any and fall back on the fact that she’s a woman (and a Democrat).
Running on her gender is proving more challenging than her team supposed. Unable to attract a measly 125 women to her recent “women only” event, Team Hillary decided to allow men to attend. The New York Post reports:
Hillary Clinton had trouble attracting high-powered women to a New York talk hosted by Silda Wall Spitzer two weeks before her campaign officially kicks off. Sources said that after ticket sales fizzled for an intimate, $2,700-per-person, “just for women” meeting on Monday, the event was thrown open to men at the 11th hour, and the deadline extended to buy tickets.
The “Conversation With Hillary Clinton” event at Midtown law firm Akin Gump was originally aiming to attract 125 women. An email invitation seen by Page Six said the event is “just for women.” But by Friday, “They’d only sold 50 tickets, so they threw it open to men,” a source said. “Ticket sales were supposed to close at 10 a.m. Sunday, but the hostesses were working the phones and pushed the deadline till Monday.”
We hear about 90 attendees included former Bill Clinton aide Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney and his husband, Randy Florke, Maurice Tempelsman, Jill Braufman (wife of hedge funder Daniel Nir), Jean Shafiroff and Susan Cole. The event began at noon, but Clinton arrived at 1 p.m. in “a royal blue jacket and black pants.” She then took pictures with donors and delivered a half-hour speech before leaving at about 2 p.m.
That she can’t attract 125 wealthy female liberals in Manhattan is note-worthy, and one can’t help but wonder if the various scandals involving her email and Clinton Foundation payola are taking their toll.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“the hostesses were working the phones”
That’s a euphemism, eh?
For telemarketer.
Not at all since the hostesses could only reach twinkies!
I wonder the dilemma Democrats would have if “Caitlyn/Bruce” Jenner decided to run for President as a Democrat. She/he would be the first “woman” President as well (and also the first combined woman/man President, able to relate to both men and women on a very personal, albeit weird and awkward, level).
If there are, or ought to be, no differences between the genders — as feminists have told us for decades– why is there any need for anyone to change his or her gender?
why is there any need for anyone to change his or her gender?
I remember back in the early 70s, when I was in college, browsing, you know, that magazine that had such great articles, and whose photos were incidental, and saw a cartoon where a doctor said to a patient “wanting to be on the winning side is not a valid reason for a sex change operation, Mr. Smith”.
I’m pretty sure Jenner identified as a conservative during his interview.
Huh.
Just consider the Sturm und Drang if Ted Cruz held a “men only” event in, say, Atlanta. Oh, the misogyny…!!!
Then consider the coffin-nailing in the Mushroom Media if he couldn’t sell it out in a half-hour.
Why, he’d be dead. Worm food. A has-been who never was.
Sorta makes you think about…lots of things.
The actual reason she couldn’t attract enough women to the event is the same as why she couldn’t attract many men. For $2,700 you got virtually no interaction with the candidate.
Think about it. She stayed for around an hour and spoke for half that time. That means that a lot of the donors didn’t even get a handshake for their money. You can get that kind of treatment for nothing!
The article isn’t clear if all of them, or only some of them, got their picture taken with her.
Many of those who bought tickets might have expected more.
It’s only after the fact that they found out the interaction was so little.
Hill’s War on Children:
ALL HAIL THE QUEEN – From the Washington Times: “Hillary Clinton is being called ‘tone deaf’ after her campaign scheduled a major campaign rally at a New York park for next weekend, forcing a planned children’s event to cancel. The children’s event at Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island, called ‘Imagination Playground,’ was nixed to accommodate the Democratic presidential candidate and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, The New York Post reported. Also in jeopardy is an annual celebration called ‘Roosevelt Island Day,’ which features a blood drive and free rides for kids, which will be held at a senior center on June 13, the same day as Mrs. Clinton’s rally, The Post reported.” Not surprising. Hillary has always acted like royalty, and, like Obama, has contempt for the American people. And, of course, the Democratic Party will go right along with it.
urgentagenda.com
Is there the thump, thump, thump of distant war drums beating a message for the fake Indian?
Smoke signals for a “rising Faux-O-Hontas??
Me sometimes wonder…
No, Kee-moe-sah-bee, Faux-O-Hontas no run this time.
But I am worried about that SOB O’Malley. He could be the next [Bill] Clinton.
Arkansas loved Bill. Maryland hates O’Malley, elected a Republican to replace him as governor. Ask Al Gore what happens when your own state won’t support you.
But Arkansas HATED Hillary with a passion from the start.
They knew she was not a “woman!” Snark!
“Hey! That was no lady! That was Bill Clinton’s spouse!”
Drum roll!
What is the evidence of Maryland “hating” O’Malley? He was mayor of Baltimore for 8 years, then governor of Maryland for 8 years. Sounds more like love than hate to me.
I don’t like anything about him. On every issue, he’s on the wrong side. Then again, I’d say the same thing about Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.
Sounds like Democrat field-clearing in return for O’Malley moving to the far left. He ran unopposed or against nobodies, the field having been cleared (one opponent declared himself clinically depressed, pulled out of the race, and endorsed the now unopposed O’Malley.
It was this new far-left O’Malley who instituted much of the anti-crime policies now rearing their ugly head in Baltimore.
Term limits got him out of the governor’s office, and the Democrat Party in MD was unable to clear the field for the next Dem governor candidate. MD instead elected a Republican. That’s not love.
@Hawkins: Pardon my digression, but picked up a copy of “Homicide, a Year on the Killing Streets” by Baltimore Sun’s David Simon [big time Lib]. Extraordinary. “NYPD Blue” on steroids. Think O’Malley was mayor at that time.
No, O’Malley only became mayor in 1999.
The book “Homicide” while it seems sort of contemporary, was published in 1999, and concerns events of the year 1988.
A quarter of a century ago, now.
I bought the book on November 4, 2002 (the day before Election Day) after first borrowing a copy from the Jefferson Market branch of the New York Public Library.
(Dewey Decimal number: 363.2595)
Error! I did not spot this typo.
The book “Homicide” was published in 1991, not 1999. It’s about detectives in the city of Baltimore in the year 1988.
@Finkelman: Looking at my copy. Copyright is 1991.
@Finkelman: of course, replied to your first post before reading your correction, sorry.
I don’t think Hillary Clinton is worried about Martin O’Malley, or about Elizabeth Warren, who was being put forward by Clinton backers as a possible candidate in order to discourage any real candidates from running.
She has good reason to begin to get worried about Bernard Sanders, maybe.
There’s a saying in politics: “You can’t beat somebody with nobody.”
But it could be that does not apply to Hillary Clinton.
And there is another possible candidate :
http://nypost.com/2015/06/02/ny-democrats-push-bloomberg-to-run-for-president/
Amazing how liberals talk of equality but then don’t practice it. A women only event, men not welcome is rather inconsistent with a political campaign that needs to attract both male and female votes. Of course, it remains true that men are more heavily Republican than women. One potential problem for Hillary if she is the Democrat nominee could be if the Republicans also nominate a woman. In any event, it is as wrong to vote for a presidential candidate because of their gender as it is to vote for or against a candidate because of their race. That lots of people do it and have done it is no excuse.
Amazing how liberals talk of equality but then don’t practice it.
You mean like “affirmative action” a/k/a reverse racism?
Look at everything Liberals do. It’s pure racism, sexism, envy, but for the “right” people and against the “wrong” people, and that’s all that matters.
You have to read buzz words for the true liberal meaning. ‘Social justice’ has nothing to do with justice – ‘justice’ is just an easier sell than ‘centralized government tyranny’. Same with the wonderful, who’d oppose it sound of the word ‘equality’. Likewise, ‘racism’ no longer means ‘discrimination based on race’. To be a ‘racist’ now means ‘opposes my political views and is a different color than me’.
You know this, of course. I know this. But I suspect we are all guilty of forgetting it from time to time.
What do you think the odds are that the 50 women who signed up while the event was still “Women Only” were offered their $2700 back when the nature of the event was suddenly changed? Bait and Switch!
Sounds like a great class action lawsuit.
Obama was a ‘nobody.’ And he massacred her.
Other than stealing, this joke of a woman has failed at everything she’s ever done and made a fool of herself in the process.
This time around will be no different.