Politico

There’s a heckuva lot to see in “W,” Oliver Stone’s new George Bush biopic that portrays the president as a drunken lout in college and follows him all the way through his handling of the insurgency after the invasion of Iraq.

But there were many other parts Stone filmed that won’t make it to the big screen, including two dream sequences featuring Saddam Hussein, a take on Bush’s born-again conversion to Christianity, and even a scene in which he practices his wobbly pilot skills in a small plane and spins out of control in the desert.

The movie, which screened for critics this week and is receiving mixed reviews, has a final running time of 129 minutes. But Stone decided to save some of the more fantastic and surreal moments for the DVD director’s cut and possibly international versions of the film. Stone says the deleted scenes were cut to tighten the film and keep the action moving, but the actor who plays Hussein also blames it on harsh language, among other reasons.

According to Sayed Badreya, the Arab-American actor who portrays Hussein, Stone dropped two “over-the-top” fantasy sequences in which the Iraqi dictator confronts and cusses out the American president. At a press conference earlier this week, Stone said he had to lose the Hussein scenes because the movie was “too long.”

“When I first went to film the scenes, I knew there was a chance they could get cut because of the way they were written — they were very raw,” Badreya told Politico last weekend. The language, he added, was R-rated, while “W.” producers were aiming for — and eventually received — a PG-13 rating that allows younger audiences into theaters and can add millions more to the final box office tally.

Stone has said he’s hoping parents will see “W.” with their children, much as he saw the absurdist political satire “Dr. Strangelove” with his folks while growing up.

One scene in “W.” has Bush watching television and seeing Hussein on the screen cursing at him before Bush chokes on that infamous pretzel. The other imagines Bush flying over Baghdad on a magic carpet while Hussein stands atop a hill, literally rattling a saber and screaming obscenities.

“We talked about it, and I told Oliver I knew it would be trouble, but he said, ‘Let’s play it and we’ll see,’” recalled Badreya. “But recently he sent me an e-mail and said that I was right.”

Badreya says that in his e-mail, Stone wrote that the dream sequences were ultimately deemed “too silly” to fit the movie’s overall tone, and he indicated to Badreya that both could later be included on the DVD or overseas versions. The actor said he put a lot of time into studying Hussein — “I had to get his voice, his style of walking and talking right,” he said. “My responsibility was to play him as a character, not a cartoon.”

Badreya was sanguine about all of his hard work ending up as DVD extras. Then again, he’s an old hand in show business. An Egyptian who came to New York in the late 1970s and roomed with Woody Harrelson as he went to film school and pursued his moviemaking dreams, he found Hollywood offered plenty of opportunities to play Hezbollah gunmen (“The Insider”), Middle East soldiers (“Three Kings”) and various terrorist types.

“Since the beginning of cinema there have been stereotypes,” he told Politico about the dilemma of playing Arab terrorists on screen. “The villain has always been a minority — whether it was Native Americans, African-Americans or Japanese-Americans. Now it’s the Iranians and Arabs.”

Hollywood’s widespread stereotyping of Middle Eastern men doesn’t come as any surprise to cinema experts. “At any given period, Hollywood needs an ethnic type to serve as ‘the other,’ and today it’s the Arabs,” said Professor Howard Suber of the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. “Arab women have long been used to add exotic aspects to a story, while Arab men have frequently been portrayed as swarthy foreigners.”

Suber, whose book “The Power of Film” remains one of the most popular cinema texts, told Politico that after 9/11, the door was flung further open to demonize anyone from the Middle East. “Arabs became an easy target,” he said.

When Badreya started his career, only two or three Arab-American actors could find full-time work around Hollywood — but after 9/11, the number of Middle Eastern actors expanded nearly tenfold. Given this competitive environment, he welcomed the chance to portray Hussein in Stone’s biopic. (Badreya, who got plenty of on-screen time this summer with “Iron Man” and Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan,” also appears in an upcoming film titled “Gitmo.”)

This week, most of the media got its first gander at “W,” with Stone and his cast holding screenings and press conferences in Los Angeles. Last week, however, Variety Editor-in-Chief Peter Bart caught an early showing of the film but didn’t give away much in his review. Calling it “engrossing” and proof that Stone “hasn’t lost his edge,” Bart described the climactic scene as an imagined conversation between the elder and younger Bushes in which 41 declares, “Thanks to Junior, no Bush will ever again be elected to public office.”

Count on a windfall of publicity for "W." in the days ahead, with Stone’s appearance on "Larry King Live" on Monday followed by Josh Brolin hosting “Saturday Night Live.”

[Read more →]

PHILADELPHIA — For pollsters, cell phone static may be getting in the way of good polling.

Across the country, pollsters attempting to accurately reflect the public’s choice for president are facing a big — and unprecedented — problem: cell phone dominance among youth combined with historic young voter turnout in the primaries.

"There’s a great fear that the traditional methods of polling," which utilize only land lines, are not "representative" of younger voters who tend to only use cell phones, said Richard Johnston, a Penn political science professor.

In 2004, just 5 percent of Americans were cell-only users, according to the Gallup Organization. Pollsters believed that group was an accurate sampling of the population at large.

But now, 13 percent of Americans use a cell phone only, according to Gallup, and that number disproportionately includes younger people.

Eric Nielsen, senior director for media strategies at Gallup, said the organization has been watching the impact of youth voters and overall cell-phone-only use this election cycle, and he considers it an important issue.

For its election polling this year, 13 percent of Gallup’s sample is made up of registered voters who use cell phones only .

Nielsen said he realizes that it remains to be seen how much of the expressed young voter interest will turn into results on election day.

For that reason, not all polling firms agree that cell-phone-only voters should be included in their sampling.

Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Company, a public-opinion research group famous for its accurate polling in the Iowa caucuses, said there is "very little difference" in demographics between cell-only users and land line users.

As a result, she is not convinced that cell-only voters’ political views trend a particular direction distinct from land-line voters.

Selzer has thus opted not to include cell-only users in her sample. However, she does weight younger voters more heavily to account for increased youth interest in this election.

Selzer said polling firms can no longer use "the past" as a reference point for how to weight younger voters in their models given the historic youth turnout in the primaries.

In her polls, she said, she thinks nothing is lost by not polling cell-only users so long as each age group is weighted accurately.

One thing is certain: With historic youth turnout and the increase in cell phone use nationally, pollsters have been forced to reexamine their methodology, and construct new ways to accurately represent the population.

"We’re all going to have to start involving cell phones" in our polls, Nielsen said. "Cell-phone-only groups are becoming a very different sample, and I’m fairly convinced that it will have to become a part of the method we use."

Colin Kavanaugh reports for University of Pennsylvania’s The Daily Pennsylvanian. The Daily Pennsylvanian is partnering with Campus Politico for the 2008 elections.

[Read more →]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama and Dick Cheney are not the only political odd couple who share a family tree. Sarah Palin is linked in her lineage to Franklin Roosevelt. She also has a connection with Princess Diana.

Roosevelt, the Depression-era Democratic president, is a distant cousin of Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, according to genealogists at Ancestry.com.

Roosevelt is Palin’s ninth cousin once removed. Their common ancestor is Rev. John Lothrop, who came to Massachusetts in 1634.

Palin also has ties to the late British princess, the Web site’s researchers found. The Alaska governor is a 10th cousin of the former royal.

Last year, Cheney’s wife, Lynne, discovered the ancestral ties between the Republican vice president and Democratic presidential nominee while researching her book. She said the relationship was eighth cousin, though the Chicago Sun-Times has traced it as ninth cousins once removed.

[Read more →]

A new script about the life of former Weather Underground leader William Ayers is making the rounds in Hollywood, and the co-screenwriter hopes that the recent hubbub surrounding Barack Obama’s ties to the Sixties radical will "at least get people interested" in it.

Director John Hancock finished writing the screenplay titled "Fugitive Days" over the summer with longtime partner Dorothy Tristan, and his agent has just begun sending it to producers and production companies. Adapted from Ayers’ 2001 memoir of the same name, the script has received "nibbles but no bites," said Hancock, who is hoping to direct the film if it is eventually produced.

Hancock told Politico that he optioned the book about a year and a half ago and spent about 40 hours interviewing Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn in Chicago. The two were founding members of the Weather Underground and together helped plot some of the most violent domestic protests of the Vietnam War, including bombings of the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.

Near the end of the screenplay, Ayers discusses his political activism in a scene with his father and says, "Yeah we did some foolish things. I can’t quite imagine putting a bomb in a building today, but the way things are in the world, I can’t imagine entirely dismissing the possibility either. What if the government is killing a bunch of innocent people and just won’t listen? And knowing now that trying to make a better life can lead to the guillotine, and the gulag, I still can’t imagine a fully human world without utopian dreams."

Sen. Obama, who acknowledged he has been "friendly" with Ayers since the mid-1990s and worked with him on various Chicago anti-poverty and education projects, is not mentioned in the screenplay since its storyline doesn’t cover the time when they met. Rather, it traces Ayers’ and Dohrn’s entry into radical politics during the 1960s and ends in 1980 when the couple turned themselves in to authorities. Hancock said he may add a reference to Obama as a coda to his script, due to the recently revived interest in Ayers as a result of the presidential campaign.

A handful of movies have been made about Ayers and the Weather Underground, including a 2002 Oscar-nominated documentary, a 1975 TV movie starring Sissy Spacek, and the 1988 feature film "Running on Empty," which co-starred Judd Hirsch and Christine Lahti as a fugitive couple loosely based on the two antiwar bombers, with the late River Phoenix as their GenX teenage son.

Hancock, who is 69 and a former Vietnam protestor himself (though not involved with the Weather Underground or affiliated groups), said that Ayers is "trying to ignore and not read about" the recent attempts by conservatives and the GOP to tie him to the Democratic presidential nominee.

Hancock’s earlier works include directing the Robert DeNiro drama "Bang the Drum Slowly" and the Nick Nolte prison saga "Weeds."

[Read more →]

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin joked Monday that her recent gaffes during media interviews were just providing “job security to SNL writers.”

Pointing to her “less than successful interview I had recently with the mainstream media” Palin said, “I was just trying to keep Tina Fey in business.”

Palin used the joke to transition to a hit on Barack Obama over his association with William Ayers, a link the McCain campaign has been pushing recently.

“There’s been a lot of interest in what I read lately,” Palin said, referring to a gaffe during her interview with CBS’s Katie Couric.

“Well, I was reading my copy of The New York Times the other day, and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago. Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers. And according to The New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol,’” the Alaska governor said.

“Barack Obama said Ayers was just someone in the neighborhood. But that’s less than truthful. His own top advisor said they were, quote, “certainly friendly.” In fact, Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers’s home. And they’ve worked together on various projects in Chicago.”

Palin added that Obama is “someone who sees America as ‘imperfect enough’ to work with a former domestic terrorist who targeted his own country.”

[Read more →]

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Sue Nace thought election volunteers were joking when they told her she would have to remove her T-shirt to vote in the presidential primary last spring.

But it was no laughing matter to the poll workers-turned-fashion police, who said Nace’s Obama shirt was inappropriate electioneering — and made her cover the writing before casting a ballot.

Now, a political fight over what voters can wear to the polls is headed to court in Pennsylvania — with the Republican Party favoring a dress code and Democrats opposed.

To the GOP, the lack of rules could open the door to all kinds of questionable displays — even, one Republican leader suggested, something as outlandish as a musical hat.

To the Democrats, voters should be free to express themselves. They fear a dress code could scare away some new voters.

The political showdown was triggered by a Pennsylvania Department of State memo advising counties last month that voters’ attire doesn’t matter as long as the "voter takes no additional action to attempt to influence other voters."

Because the memo is not legally binding, some counties have kept past restrictions on clothing and political buttons.

But two Pittsburgh-area elections officials sued to have the memo rescinded. Their lawsuit warned that if the memo stands, "nothing would prevent a partisan group from synchronizing a battalion of like-minded individuals … to descend on a polling place, presenting a domineering, united front, certain to dissuade the average citizen who may privately hold different beliefs."

This fight over the interpretation of a state law designed to shield the polls from partisan electioneering could determine which presidential candidate’s supporters might be turned away from the polls in this battleground state.

Democrats have benefited from a surge in voter registration this year, with young adults aged 18 to 24 making up the largest group of new registrants, according to statistics from March 30 to Sept. 8. A poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University showed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pulling 15 percentage points ahead of Republican John McCain in the state.

State Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney said GOP support for the dress code is a partisan effort to scare away new voters.

"To go [to the polls] and engage in an expression of democracy and then be accosted by the fashion police is a form of voter intimidation," he said.

The state Republican Party says Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell’s administration crafted a partisan memo that would open the door to abuses.

"The first thing would be a button or a shirt, and maybe the next thing would be a musical hat," said GOP chairman Robert Gleason, who called a news conference in support of dress codes.

Douglas Hill, head of Pennsylvania’s association of county commissioners, believes the state’s 67 counties are now evenly split on the question. Before the memo, counties leaned toward banning politically polarizing clothing and buttons because "they didn’t want to get into fine-line disputes," he said.

Nace, a 44-year-old Obama supporter, hopes the state’s recommendation will stand so she can vote Nov. 4 while wearing her political leanings on her sleeve.

"Especially with this election, for some reason it feels very personal to me," she said. "Even when I see another car with a bumper sticker on it, it’s like, ‘Yeah, they get it."’

During the April 22 primary, Nace was allowed into the voting booth in York County only after she rolled up her Obama T-shirt to hide the writing. After the state memo came out, York County rescinded its ban.

At least four states — Maine, Montana, Vermont and Kansas — explicitly prohibit wearing campaign buttons, stickers and badges inside polling places, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and state officials.

In Kentucky, elections officials last month told poll workers they should admit voters decked out in campaign apparel, after e-mails circulated warning that Obama supporters would be turned away if they wore shirts and pins.

[Read more →]

Since presidential aspirants began disclosing their tax returns, no candidate has released filings quite like those that Sarah Palin made public Friday afternoon.

The IRS filings, covering 2006 and 2007, bolster the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s frequent assertions about her family’s membership in the middle class, albeit in the upper end of the class.

In those two years, Sarah Palin, who was elected Alaska’s governor in 2006, and her husband, Todd, supported four children on an average annual income of $147,000 from an eclectic array of far outside-the-beltway sources ranging from fish sales to government entitlement checks.

Though the Palins’ annual income was $64,000 more than the average Alaskan family of six, they looked like paupers compared to the other three families in the presidential derby.

The next lowest-earning crew in the bunch, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, earned an average of $284,000 in 2006 and 2007—and they have no dependent children.

Meanwhile, Biden’s running mate, Barack Obama, and his wife, Michelle, who have two dependent daughters, averaged $2.6 million in those years. And Palin’s running mate, John McCain, and his wife, Cindy, who had two dependent children in 2006, cleared $6.4 million that year—almost all of it from Cindy McCain, who has yet to release her 2007 return.

By way of contrast, John McCain paid nearly $14,000 to have his taxes prepared for those two years by Phoenix’s Inlign Wealth Management, while the Palins paid less than $400 to have their joint returns prepared by H&R Block.

The Palins gave $8,200 in checks and goods to charity in 2006 and 2007, including a crib they donated to the Salvation Army in 2006—more than a year before Sarah Palin gave birth to their youngest child, son Trig.

The McCain campaign also on Friday released a mandatory federal candidate disclosure statement for Sarah Palin, showing that the family has assets worth between $1 million and $2.4 million. But the couple’s lakefront home in Wasilla, Alaska, accounted for as much as half of that. And—on their taxes—they reported paying around $10,000 each year in interest on their mortgage, but also using their home as an office.

They also sold some property in 2006, turning an $8,200 profit.

More than the numbers, though, it’s the details of the Palin’s disclosures that set them apart from other national political families.

Todd Palin, who works for BP’s oil operation on Alaska’s North Slope, reported to the IRS that his occupation was “oilfield” and deducted $924 for dues he paid to the United Steelworkers Union—a rare expense for national political spouses, generally, and rarer still among Republicans.

In addition to income from his work on “The Slope,” as Alaskans call it, Todd Palin reported making more than $23,200 in profits from a commercial fishing business, for which he reported the use of a computer, cell phone and three vehicles (a 1975 Ford and two trucks: a 2006 Dodge and an unidentified 1992 model) as business expenses.

His much-ballyhooed career as a snowmobile racer, which McCain and Palin cite frequently on the stump, was less lucrative.

Though he reported gross receipts of $33,500 in 2006 and 2007 from “snow machine racing” (he finished second and first, respectively, in those year’s Iron Dog Snow machine Races), he had a net loss of $7,165 from the venture after deducting expenses. Those included fuel, equipment, parts, repairs, maintenance, entry fees, gear, decals, posters, “physicals” and travel, according to their returns, which also showed that last year he sold his two-year old Arctic Cat snowmobile for $5,000.

Sarah Palin reported receiving $197,000 in 2007 as governor of Alaska, while the family pulled in $3,308 that year from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a state constitution-mandated payout of oil and gas revenues to Alaskan citizens. The Palins—like all Alaskans—will get an additional $1,200 per person in their next Permanent Fund checks, because Palin this year added a "resource rebate” to the program.

The Palins passed up the opportunity to direct $12 from their 2006 and 2007 taxes to the presidential public financing system through which the McCain-Palin campaign received $84.1 million for the general election. The couple did not check the boxes on their returns asking whether they’d allocate $3 to the program, which McCain has sought to legislatively bolster over the years and which his campaign has touted its participation in.

The McCain campaign had received an extension to file Palin’s personal financial disclosure, which originally had been due September 28—before Thursday’s vice presidential debate—at the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC gave the campaign until Monday to file, but the campaign instead disclosed the documents Friday afternoon, a time politicians traditionally have released information they hope gets lost in already planned weekend papers and news broadcasts.

Nonetheless, the disclosure, which covers 2007 and 2008, lists her start date as governor as January 2006, though she didn’t take office until December. And it leaves blank a section for reporting gifts, though she reported to the state accepting more than $25,000 in gifts, including a $1,200 gold-nugget pin.

A campaign official, who did not want to be identified discussing Palin’s finances, said the gifts are “not her property—they are given to the office of governor, and not the governor’s property.”

Neither the disclosure nor the taxes shed any light on Palin’s claiming state allowances for nights spent at home, the subject of a critical report in the Washington Post.

The campaign official said that “business travel is not income to the state employee,” so the per diems are not listed on the Palin’s taxes, nor are they are required to be reported on the federal candidate disclosure.

[Read more →]

If history repeats, voters will make a final decision at the polls based on the top of the ticket. But for television viewers, the battle of the Democratic and Republican running mates might actually come out on top.

What makes Thursday’s vice presidential debate a possible ratings juggernaut lies in what’s become an oft-stated mantra of the 2008 race: expect the unexpected.

Although Sarah Palin proved more than capable debating opponents in the 2006 Alaska governor’s race, she’s never competed on a national level (while discussing international issues). And while Sen. Joe Biden has experience on his side, the long-winded Delaware senator could get verbally tripped up in front of tens of millions of people—a costly mistake that Republicans will be awaiting while on the edge of their seats.

“People want to see whether there’s going to be a train wreck,” said Andrew Tyndall, an independent television analyst. "This is a reality game-show election.”

No one wants to go out on a limb and pull a number out of their hat. But Tyndall, along with some top broadcast executives, agreed that television ratings for the vice presidential debate could top last week’s presidential showdown.

Despite all the excitement surrounding this election—and the added hype due to McCain’s last-minute decision to commit to last Friday’s debate—the 90-minute contest brought in just 52.4 million viewers. That’s not bad, but it’s a 16 percent smaller audience than the first debate in 2004.

Perhaps the most likely reason for the drop-off was that the debate took place on a Friday evening, a night of the week when potential viewers might be out on the town or sitting in the stands of high school football fields throughout the country.

“I think there’s going to be very high interest in this debate,” said Sam Feist, CNN’s political director.

Feist said he expects viewers to tune in for both their first opportunity to watch Palin handle questions live, and also to see whether Biden can prove he has the right experience for the job.

Viewers are clearly curious about Palin. Her speech to the Republican faithful at the GOP national convention brought in roughly as many viewers as both Barack Obama and John McCain. Many Americans learned a bit more about Palin from her interviews with Katie Couric, with clips trickling out for a week on “CBS Evening News” and on the network’s website. Others just might want to see if she’s the slow-witted character played by Tina Fey on “Saturday Night Live.”

Thursday’s debate has two factors that have led to the highest-rated vice presidential debates in the past: a historical dimension (the first Republican woman) and the presence of a wild card (Palin’s first debate on the national stage).

In 1984, George H.W. Bush and Geraldine Ferraro squared off in a debate that brought in 56.7 million viewers. The three-way contest in 1992, between Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and Admiral James “Why am I here?” Stockdale, clocked in second place at 51.2 million. Dick Cheney and John Edwards’ 2004 stand-off, with Iraq at center stage, attracted 43.6 million viewers.

One constant from the 2004 debate is PBS’s Gwen Ifill, who will again be the moderator. Ifill, as highly regarded as any Washington journalist, wouldn’t be expected to cause controversy, but managed to do just that 36 hours before the nominees hit the stage.

That’s because a Drudge Report-fueled story about Ifill’s book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama”—to be released on Inauguration Day 2009—eventually made the rounds throughout the conservative blogosphere, talk-radio, and cable news.

Despite the fact that Ifill hasn’t even written the chapter on Obama, by her account, critics alleged that it is a “pro-Obama” book, and there’s a conflict in her serving as moderator.

"I’ve got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I’m not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation," Ifill told the Associated Press.
Ifill may be right not to sweat it. With a stellar track record, Ifill has been praised for able handling of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

One of the most notable moments during the Cheney-Edwards match-up occurred when the Democratic nominee brought up Halliburton, leading the vice president—and one-time company chief executive—to ask for more than the allotted time.

“I can respond, Gwen, but it’s going to take more than 30 seconds,” Cheney said.

“Well, that’s all you’ve got,” she quickly replied, to audience laughter.

"The proof is in the pudding,” Ifill said to the AP. “They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I’ve done my job."

Certainly, many will be watching. Conservative talkers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity riled up their 13 million-plus audiences during the day Wednesday, which could lead to another contingent tuning in to keep an eye on what the hosts consider liberal media bias.

The cable and broadcast networks will follow a similar format to last Friday’s debate, with full rosters of political talent—from anchors to correspondents to pundits—weighing in on-site or in the studio.

And that includes ABC News, which took the number one spot during the presidential debate, bringing in just over 11 million viewers.

ABC’s political director David Chalian said that this year’s vice presidential debate will attract viewers largely because of the “unique interest in Sarah Palin, as a character in this election narrative.” Part of that draw, he said, is that Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket marks a political first.

“I think Americans want to be drawn into history,” Chalian added.

[Read more →]

While this week’s congressional bailout disaster has virtually paralyzed Washington and sent Wall Street into a tailspin, out in sunny, shiny Hollywood, they’re still doing what comes naturally: holding fundraisers for Democratic causes and candidates.

It seems every week there’s another glittering L.A. fundraiser held at a lavish hotel or private residence, featuring performances by superstar talent, flutes of sparkling champagne, exotic gourmet catering and, of course, plenty of wealthy actors, agents, managers and studio execs writing large checks.

Then there are the smaller get-­togethers, like last summer’s “Weenie Roast for Change,” in which music publicist Bob Merlis raised around $5,000 for Barack Obama’s presidential bid by serving hot dogs to hundred-dollar donors in his Hollywood backyard. (Celebrities included the R&B singer Swamp Dogg and the dorky guy who does the voice for SpongeBob SquarePants.)

“There are all different types of fundraisers, from the grass roots to the grass tops, if you will,” says Victoria Hopper, director of Women for Obama in Southern California and co-founder of the newly launched progressive firm SeaChange Communications. “But, honestly, no matter how good your fundraising abilities, if your cause or candidate doesn’t inspire people the way Obama does, you can’t do what we’ve done.” (As the wife of ’60s-icon-turned-conservative Dennis Hopper, she knows a thing or two about change.)

It’s not just Obama cruising for California cash. John McCain’s campaign often ventures into celebrity territory, most recently in late August, when a Beverly Hills fete raised $4.7 million and attracted TV stars such as Angie Harmon (“Law & Order”), Jon Cryer (“Two and a Half Men”) and Patricia Heaton (“Everybody Loves Raymond”), along with “The Godfather” legends Robert Duvall and James Caan. And McCain will make another lunge for Hollywood lucre again next month, with MGM Chairman Harry Sloan reportedly organizing a GOP fundraiser that will eventually pay for pro-McCain TV spots.

But, as McCain might say, let’s have a little straight talk here: Hollywood is the ATM from which Democratic causes and candidates make their largest withdrawals.

Last month, on Sept. 16, twin fundraisers in Beverly Hills benefiting Obama’s presidential bid raked in more than $9 million — with other estimates suggesting the total take topped $11 million. This Friday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton arrives in Los Angeles for another Obama money-go-round, this event located downtown at the trendy Edison, a power-plant-turned-power-lounge. And next month, a major blowout is in the works with supermarket magnate and Clinton supporter Ron Burkle to fight Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriages.

Last Saturday, a group of female Hollywood political players organized their first-ever fundraiser to support Democratic senatorial candidates across the country. Raising more than $1.3 million — with 350 attendees buying tickets priced between $2,500 and $10,000 — the new group Voices for a Senate Majority says it will split the night’s proceeds among eight Senate challengers: Tom Allen of Maine, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado, Al Franken of Minnesota, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Begich of Alaska.

The group also delivered a virtual playbook on how to run a successful L.A. fundraiser. Here, then, are a few tips from event organizers.

Invite plenty of pols: Hollywood types love to mingle with Washington types, so be sure to have lots of local, state and national candidates attending. For the Voices event, five of the eight Senate challengers, including Franken and Shaheen, mingled with the crowd. (The other three stayed in D.C. for the Wall Street bailout negotiations.) California’s own Sen. Barbara Boxer opened the evening’s program by addressing the importance of winning the additional Senate seats, noting how filibusters are often used to buck crucial policy initiatives.

Any Kennedy can be crucial: The coolness quotient of every Hollywood fundraiser rises exponentially if a member of the Kennedy clan — especially Maria Shriver — attends. Progressive icon and Air America radio host Bobby Kennedy Jr. received a standing ovation Saturday night after he gave a short speech about the world’s current view of American values and how international opinion had changed dramatically during the Bush administration.

Put on a show: Even for a small cocktail party, keep an acoustic guitar handy, in case James Taylor or another attendee decides to strum an impromptu tune. The Voices fundraiser offered an elaborate lineup of A-list talent, from singer-comics Steve Martin (picking at his banjo during three songs) and David Letterman foil Paul Shaffer (updating “Eve of Destruction”) to actor-singers including Jennifer Garner and Diane Keaton (the latter closing the event with an emotional rendition of “God Bless America”). The evening’s most uncurbed enthusiasm was reserved for Larry David, who got big laughs when he riffed about the differences between his family’s lifestyle and that of the Kennedys’.

Boldfaced names are gold: If you want mentions in the Hollywood trades, make sure studio execs and writer-directors show up. The Voices event, for its part, drew Larry (“The Big Chill”) Kasdan, Ed (“The Last Samurai”) Zwick, Jim (“Broadcast News”) Brooks, J.J. (“Lost”) Abrams, Sony’s Michael Lynton and biographer Scott Berg. More highly recognizable names included host Martin Short, Ben Affleck, Sally Field, Barbra Streisand and hubby James Brolin, Catherine O’Hara, Dana Delany, Rashida Jones and Victor Garber.

And if you can ever get that dorky guy who does the voice for SpongeBob SquarePants, by all means, do so.

Odds and Ends

HBO began showing “Taxi to the Dark Side” this week, and if you haven’t seen this year’s Academy Award-winning documentary about an Afghan cabbie who met his death after aggressive questioning by American soldiers, try to catch it. Director Alex Gibney, previously nominated for an Oscar for directing “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” is working on a documentary for early next year about the lobbying scandals of Jack Abramoff.

With all of his “Enron” research linking Wall Street to Washington, we asked Gibney if he found any parallels to the current financial meltdown. “Oh yeah. It’s remarkably similar in many ways,” he said. “The language in both scandals was the same: ‘We’ve got a new high-yield, low-risk formula! Don’t worry; trust us! It’s complicated, but we know everything about it, so there’s no problem!’ and then, whoops, it collapses. And these firms are collapsing similar to the way Enron collapsed: There’s a lot of debt collateralized by stock, and when the stock starts to fall, then more stock has to be used to collateralize and it collapses further. Then, bingo!”

Gibney believes that former Enron chiefs and current Wall Street execs share a similar sense of entitlement, giving them the false feeling that they can use the public’s money to fund wild risks — and take in huge fees — until things fall apart, at which point they shrug and say, “What, me worry?”

“It wouldn’t surprise me if we comb through the detritus of this and find some of the same people involved,” he said.

[Read more →]

When he began his career in the comptroller’s office of Ohio Bell 40 years ago, Chuck Crowders dreamed of becoming the district manager in charge of filing the phone company’s federal income taxes.

He never imagined he would help develop those very tax policies — or that he would discuss flat tax proposals with aides to then-Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) or with Grover Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform. But that’s exactly what he has done.

Crowders is not your typical lobbyist who spent years learning the ropes as a congressional aide. 

Yet many firms employ lobbyists who have never had jobs or even internships on Capitol Hill. Call them the outside insiders. They have the specialized knowledge that’s key to massaging the legislative process — even in the absence of ostensibly essential “insider contacts.”

“I didn’t know anything at all about being a lobbyist when they transferred me here,” said Crowders, who now works part time at Bockorny Group. “It was kind of an experiment that worked out.”

AT&T, the parent company of Ohio Bell, transferred Crowders to Washington about 15 years ago to work in government affairs. Immediately, he began to lobby on labor and health care issues — two policy areas in which he had no background.

In fact, he had never worked in public policy, and adapting was a challenge.

“I aligned myself with strong people who knew how to lobby,” he said. “When I went with coalitions to lobby, I went with people who’d been here for years. I’d watch them, and I found out which attributes they had that were effective.”

His observations proved invaluable.

“Having relationships is important,” said Nancy Donaldson, a Dutko Worldwide lobbyist who has never worked on the Hill. “But people want you to give them some value, expert advice, access to information you need. That’s what I think matters; that’s who Hill staff need to work with.”

“They can figure out pretty quickly if you’re helpful,” she said, “or if you’re just taking up their time.”

She said her lack of Hill experience hasn’t mattered when she has worked closely with members on issues they care about, especially as an advocate for nuclear nonproliferation in the 1980s.

“I was trained by the best,” Donaldson said, mentioning former Rep. Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.), who held strategy meetings on arms control that Donaldson and other lobbyists attended. She even remembers circulating Dear Colleague letters right outside the House floor, “back when it didn’t have as much security.”

She later went to work for the Downey McGrath Group, a lobbying firm founded by Downey, saying the key to her success has been her strong interest in public policy. “There’s not much I can give them except the things I care about,” she said, explaining that she has become an expert on her clients’ issues because she is enmeshed in them.

Donaldson works with a 25-year-old associate at Dutko, Dave Korkoian, who had never even been inside a Hill office building before starting at the firm. But he had worked at a nongovernmental organization in Ghana and at the U.S. Embassy in Uganda. And that background exposed him to issues that many of his international clients are interested in — and made him more effective, too.

"It is one thing to show that a trade program supports the U.S. economy and supports high-quality union jobs abroad,” Korkoian said, “but it’s cherries on top to say you have been to the factory.”

He called the Hill a “steep learning curve.” But his outsider status has its advantages. “When you’re going on the Hill with, or on behalf of, a client, you can be comfortable getting a meeting knowing that you have a substantive argument to make, not just because you used to work with him or her,” he said.

Still, career advisers caution that these are exceptions that prove the rule that Hill experience is invaluable.

“People should learn the basics from the horse’s mouth,” said Mag Gottlieb, career director at The George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. “It’s one thing to go to Civics 101, but it’s quite another to learn how things work from the inside out.”

She counsels aspiring lobbyists to work in state legislatures, work in Congress and become lawyers. Though some bypass these traditional rules, she said, it’s harder for employers to take candidates seriously if their résumés don’t list significant Washington experience.

And most lobbyists who plugged away on the Hill for years might agree.

Paddy Link, a senior vice president at Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, spent decades working in congressional committees and member offices and served a stint in the Commerce Department during the Reagan administration.

“Obviously, it depends on what kind of lobbying you’re going into,” she said. “But I think that if you want to give clients strategic advice, it’s often very helpful to know the rules of both the House and the Senate and how the executive branch works.”

Much of her work involves agencies, and her administration experience gave her an up-close view of how, for instance, the general counsels and the White House Office of Management and Budget influence decision making.

“I have all this crazy obscure stuff running around in my brain,” she said, “and sometimes it’s actually useful for some of what I work with.”

But Link, like other lobbyists interviewed, downplayed the importance of developing working relationships with members and congressional staff because turnover is high and, besides, you can’t even take anyone out to lunch these days.

Instead, lobbyists credit their success to deep knowledge of the issues, which people can gain in any number of ways.

As Crowders said, “lots of lobbyists would have to go back to their clients if staff asked them a policy question. I knew the issues from having worked in them for years. And that’s why lots of staff enjoyed working with me.”

[Read more →]