A woman of the people 47

Far from having any objection to luxury, we like it. (Though we maintain that it should be bought with one’s own money, not the tax-payer’s – as for instance Obama’s enormously expensive fund-raising jaunts are.) So when we question the purchase of luxury, it is not from any taste for puritan restraint. The only question with the subject in hand is whether what or whom is bought, is worth the price.

The article we quote from comes, unexpectedly, from the left-leaning Washington Post.

It reveals how a Leftist (ie. a person whose heart purportedly bleeds for the plight of the underdog, and who loudly objects to “the gap between the rich and the poor” ) demonstrates her solidarity with the less-well-off.

The particular hypocrite under the magnifying glass here is Hillary Clinton. The luxury she demands is charged to the incomprehensible people who want to hear her lecture. Her banal speeches, telling listeners nothing of any interest or originality, cost a staggering sum. And the demands being very detailed and pernickety, also take a lot of human energy.

When officials at the University of California at Los Angeles began negotiating a $300,000 speech appearance by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the school had one request: Could we get a reduced rate for public universities?

The answer from Clinton’s representatives: $300,000 is the “special university rate”.

That e-mail exchange and other internal communications, obtained this week by The Washington Post under a Freedom of Information Act request, provide a rare glimpse into the complex and meticulous backstage efforts to manage the likely 2016 presidential candidate’s lucrative speaking career.

At UCLA, efforts to book Clinton and then prepare for her visit were all-consuming, beginning almost immediately after she left her job as secretary of state on Feb. 1, 2013, until she delivered her Luskin Lecture for Thought Leadership speech on March 5, 2014.

The documents show that Clinton’s representatives at the Harry Walker Agency exerted considerable control over her appearance and managed even the smallest details — from requesting lemon wedges and water on stage to a computer, scanner, and a spread of hummus and crudité in the green room backstage.

Top university officials discussed at length the style and color of the executive armchairs Clinton and moderator Lynn Vavreck would sit in [them?] as they carried on a question-and-answer session, as well as the kind of pillows to be situated on each chair. Clinton’s representatives requested that the chairs be outfitted with two long, rectangular pillows — and that two cushions be kept backstage in case the chair was too deep and she needed additional back support.

After a lengthy call with a Clinton representative, UCLA administrator Patricia Lippert reported to campus colleagues, “She uses a lavalier [microphone] and will both speak from the audience and walk around stage, TED talk style. We need a teleprompter and 2-3 downstage scrolling monitors for her to read from.”

During a walk-through of Royce Hall five days before the lecture, the e-mails show, Clinton’s team rejected the podium planned for her use during her 20- to 30-minute speech, setting off a scramble on campus to find a suitable podium and rent a new university seal to match.

Critics have argued that the carefully staged events and high speaking fees could complicate Clinton’s ability to run a populist campaign built around the economic struggles of the middle class. …

[Her representatives] asked for a case of still water, room temperature, to be deposited stage right. They also asked that “a carafe of warm/hot water, coffee cup and saucer, pitcher of room temperature water, water glass, and lemon wed­ges” be situated both on a table on stage as well as in another room where Clinton would stand for photos with VIPs.

For the green room, Clinton’s representatives requested: “Coffee, tea, room temp sparkling and still water, diet ginger ale, crudité, hummus and sliced fruit.” They also asked for a computer, mouse and printer, as well as a scanner, which the university had to purchase for the occasion.

When university officials decided to award Clinton the UCLA Medal [!- ed], Clinton’s team asked that it be presented to her in a box rather than draped around her neck. That request was sent to the university’s chancellor, Gene Block.

“Chancellor Block has agreed to accommodate Hillary Clinton’s request to have the medal presented in a box,” Assistant Provost Margaret Leal-Sotelo wrote in one e-mail.

Lippert replied: “I can either have the jewelers box open or closed, in case the Chancellor doesn’t want to risk opening it.”

By contract, Clinton’s approval was needed for any promotional materials. Clinton gave permission for the university to record the event, but “for archival purposes only”. For public distribution, Clinton’s speaking agency approved only a two-minute highlight video to upload to YouTube. “Please make sure it is available only for one (1) year from the date of posting,” a Harry Walker Agency official added.

Clinton posed for individual photos with 100 VIPS, or 50 couples — “We get a total of 50 clicks,” one university official explained — as well as two group photos. Lippert wrote to colleagues that Clinton’s representatives wanted the group shots “prestaged,” with participants assembled and ready to take the photographs before Clinton arrived “so the secretary isn’t waiting for these folks to get their act together.” Reiterating the request, Lippert added, “She doesn’t like to stand around waiting for people.” …

Clinton’s [UCLA] appearance was privately funded as part of a lecture series endowed by Meyer Luskin, an investor and president of Scope Industries, a food waste recycling company.

In 2012, former president Bill Clinton delivered the inaugural Luskin lecture at UCLA for $250,000. Upon learning that Hillary Clinton’s fee would be $300,000, Guy Wheatley, a UCLA development official, wrote in an e-mail: “Wow! She get’s $50K more than hubby!”

Luskin told a university official to make sure the event raised at least $100,000. The university sold more tickets — which ranged in price from $250 for one seat to $2,000 for two seats, a photo with Clinton and access to a post-lecture reception with the college deans — and provided fewer free tickets to students. …

On campus, university planners fielded repeated requests for complimentary or reserved tickets — for scholarship students, for donors, for faculty and staff.

Organizers faced criticism that more students could not attend, particularly after an early morning event to allow students to enter a lottery for one of 413 free tickets turned into a shoving match. But students without tickets were able to watch a live stream of the event in an overflow location, Renaud said.

It is a relief to know that not all those who wanted to hear what she had to say were Hillary fans:

Other controversy surrounded Clinton’s visit. When an online survey asked the public what questions should be posed during a 40-minute question-and-answer session, university officials noted in e-mails that the majority of the suggestions were about the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Our guess: Those questions were not put to her.

And here – to provide even more evidence of the lady’s moral tin-ear so to speak – is an extract from the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Hillary Rodham Clinton likes to travel in style.

She insists on staying in the “presidential suite” of luxury hotels that she chooses anywhere in the world, including Las Vegas.

She usually requires those who pay her six-figure fees for speeches to also provide a private jet for transportation — only a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 or larger will do.

And she doesn’t travel alone, relying on an entourage of a couple of “travel aides,” and a couple of advance staffers who check out her speech site in the days leading up to her appearance, much like a White House trip

Her lifestyles of the rich and famous ways, and comments that she made about her wealth during a recent book tour, have fueled criticism that she’s out of touch with average Americans.

The Democratic contender said she pays taxes, unlike some people who are “truly well off”.  She also said she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001. In the past eight years alone, the couple has earned more than $100 million, much of it from speaking fees

And for her colossal fee, she expects much and gives little:

“It is agreed that Speaker will be the only person on the stage during her remarks,” according to the May 13 contract the Harry Walker Agency signed for [one of Clinton’s appearances].

According to her standard speaking contract, Clinton will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes; will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people; and won’t allow any press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech.

The only record allowed will be made by a stenographer whose transcription will be given only to Clinton. The stenographer’s $1,250 bill, however, will go to the [institution hiring her].

The [institution] … is prohibited from advertising the event on radio, TV or billboards. Mail and website ads are allowed, although Clinton staffers must approve in writing any promotional material. …

Clinton’s contract allows her to invite up to 20 guests [to a dinner accompanying the speaking engagement], including her staff, and have them sit together to be able to join the photo line.

None of the photos can be made public.

“The Sponsor is also required to communicate to the photo line attendees that the photo is for private, personal use only and that the photo cannot be used in any way to imply any kind of endorsement of an entity, individual, product or service,” the contract says.

“Any use of the photo that suggests or implies any such endorsement is forbidden.” …

Demands in the standard Clinton contract include (in addition to her own round-trip flights “on a chartered private jet e.g., a Gulfstream 450 or larger”), business class travel (a small concession here) for two advance staffers; hotel accommodation selected by Clinton’s staff (in addition to the “presidential suite” for herself), of “up to three adjoining or contiguous single rooms for her travel aides and up to two additional single rooms for the advance staff”; “a $500 travel stipend to cover out-of-pocket costs for Clinton’s lead travel aide”; and “meals and incidentals for Clinton, her travel aides and advance staff, as well as all phone charges”.

It amounts to a lot. Hillary Clinton is very expensive to hire.

But has she ever said anything worth paying a cent for? 

To Democrats that is probably an irrelevant question. Whatever Democratic Party pablum she regurgitates, or doesn’t, adds or subtracts not a jot to or from her value to those who want to hear her.

To quote her only famous – and infamous – line: “What difference does it make?”  

Posted under Progressivism, Socialism, United States by Jillian Becker on Saturday, November 29, 2014

Tagged with ,

This post has 47 comments.

Permalink
  • REALBEING

    This self-absorbed charlatan is like poison to intelligent human beings. And we think that Barack Obama made a bad president!!!

    Watch out if this “Godzilla” gets a toe-hold on The Oval Office!!

    • Eugenian

      And you base that on what other than a “feeling”?

      • REALBEING

        Her track record as a politician, human being, and a charlatan. What else???

        • Eugenian

          Does anyone have a couple of comments they can point to? Opinion without facts is just conjecture.

          • REALBEING

            Her integrity with regards to the Benghazi fiasco. Its pretty much self-explanatory, or haven’t you read about it, yet??
            Crave more dirt on Hillary?? Just hit this:

            http://www.arkancide.com/

            • Eugenian

              Well, that’s interesting. Never heard of the nearly 50 suspected murders they committed. How could Bill, who wasn’t able to keep his semen off a woman’s dress, have such skill as to hide so many murders? Love the Snopes review: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
              Benghazi? Of course, you read the just released Intelligence report endorsed by Conservatives?
              https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

              Wish I had time to keep debunking these. I usually find some truth, but just enough to add credibility. As they say, “Maybe everything didn’t happen that way exactly, but there must be some truth.” Like Hansel and Gretel: It can’t ALL be made up!

            • liz

              The just released intelligence report by “conservatives” was a fine example of their true colors – corrupt cowards. Doesn’t let Hillary herself off the hook in any way, shape, or form.

            • Eugenian
            • REALBEING

              LOL!!! This is the type of apology that The Huffington Post loves to deliver!

              Its “Messiah’s” administration is once again driving a clean car!

            • Eugenian

              Well, that’s interesting. Never heard of the 50 or so suspected murders they committed. How could Bill, who wasn’t able to keep his semen off a woman’s dress, have such skill as to hide so many murders?
              Benghazi? Of course, you read the just released Intelligence report endorsed by Conservatives?
              https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

              and this just came in: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-joyce/an-open-letter-of-apology_b_6219340.html

            • REALBEING

              Interesting report. It doesn’t look like reality, from every quote I’ve read online from Conservatives in the know, only a “white-washing” produced by a chairman with an agenda to protect himself, 3/4 of Washington, and his wife.

              What is interesting about this report is the role that Rep. Rogers’ wife, Kristi Rogers, the head of Aegis Defense Services, reportedly hired Blue Mountain Group, another security service with a questionable track record to provide security for the Benghazi consulate in 2012.

              The good Representative Rogers will retire abruptly in Jan, 2015 to the dismay of his Michigan constituents for a job in radio.

              It seems that his wife, Kristi Rogers leads a security group, Aegis Security who hired a Blue Mountain Group to do Benghazi security, who then hired some Al Qaeda Militia in their stead to guard the Benghazi compound.

              And it appears that they dropped their weapons when the bad boys showed up to kill everybody.

              Its long and full of governmental stench, but a good read, and knowing our government the way I do, probably true.

              Oh! And this story points at our good Secretary Of State, (at the time) as also being a bit “stenchy.”
              https://www.facebook.com/notes/lisa-pandone-benson/eyeoncongress-chairman-mike-rogers-retires-abrupty-why/10152019739572113

            • Thanks for this story and the link, REALBEING. I wonder if Trey Gowdy knows that John Boehner knew about the gun-running.

            • REALBEING

              LOL!! You just might see a fist-fight on the floor of the House!!!

            • Eugenian

              Last night I saw George W. and Bill Clinton speak on the presidency, and I thought, if Clinton eliminated so many people, why is Bush sitting next to him and chatting it up. Then I realized why! If he didn’t, Clinton will remove him too! Thank you for the insight!

            • Eugenian

              Rogers is not retiring “abruptly”. It was announced in March of this year. He’s going to a national radio show, that likely will bring in the cash.
              It is important to use words like “abruptly” to cast suspicion. Good job.

            • REALBEING

              If you re-read the story immediately after you complete a reading comprehension course, you will see that the “abruptness” of his leaving office is inferred by Representative Rogers’ constituents, and the author:

              “He is also liked by his constituents who feel a bit betrayed by his (RECENT) decision.”

              As an observation, you seem to nit pick way too much if you haven’t any fact to deliver……

            • Eugenian

              Interesting comment on “reading comprehension”. I actually taught reading comprehension for 5 years, have a degree in education and psychology, and I am an agnostic (thus the attraction to the Atheist title of this blog). I seldom assume from an inference. If it is a fact, then the author can state such. I don’t believe a 9 month delay in leaving a position is an abrupt departure.

            • REALBEING

              The highly polished degrees that you wear on your chest explains rather well the answers you deliver.

              Still the question of attention to trivia remains…..Why pay so much attention to that portion of the story? “Recent” and “Abrupt” are superlative to the meat of the discussion.

              And besides this fact, the man’s constituents may have thought his leaving was abrupt, to them.

              Judging by the large amount of money in his war chest, he was ready to continue running for his office, leading the life of a Conservative-looking Liberal ‘hack.’

              Its apparent that you cannot penetrate the story’s position on the Benghazi nightmare that Lisa Benson writes about.

              Go on and pick up your toys and go play with yourself. Its apparent that you’ve no friends to do this with…….

            • Eugenian

              I just don’t understand why you have to play in the dirt with comments such as “you’ve no friends to do this with”. But given the paltry number of people who are showing “likes”, it appears you have few “friends” in this group. But it IS interesting to hear the arguments and the way they are presented.

            • Tibor Gaspardyn

              You have no idea the people across the world who watch, read and observe. You have no idea who Jillian Becker IS. Reading your posts…the words useless and pest best describe your presence here. If you are an expert at comprehension…then you have read foolish ideas.

            • REALBEING

              When I stated that you’ve no friends to do this with, I meant here. And I’m quite correct in stating that you are indeed playing………while I am not, anymore.
              GOOD DAY!

            • At what educational institution did you teach reading comprehension for five years? And which years were they?

              And if you are accustomed to reading carefully, why can’t you read the spelling of my name?

            • REALBEING

              I believe that you’ve uncovered another charlatan besides Hillary, Jillian!

            • Eugenian

              Sorry Jillian. There are a couple of reasons I did not notice the correct spelling of your name. One, “Jillian” is similar in looks looks to “Jullian”. And since “Jullian” is more common (my small poll of family members agree that Jullian is more common than Jillian.) I misread the spelling and “closed” (Gestalt) the spelling using my template for “Jullian”. And being in my 60s, my eyes don’t distinguish some letters like they used to. But, I can compensate by reading more carefully and enlarging the text on the computer. My error.
              As far as what institution I taught at, well, I know a set-up when I see one. How about you tell me what educational institutions you approve of? Do you have a list of educational institutions that meet your standards? I am concerned this is headed toward a slam of the “educated elite”. Is that where you are going with this?

            • Google has just given 640, 000 entries for Jullian,
              47,900,000 for Jillian.

              But never mind that.

              I want to know where you’ve taught reading comprehension, and when, so that I can check up on you.

              I don’t know why you’re here. You didn’t answer me when I asked you that.

              Why ARE you here? What are you after? What’s your intention?

              You don’t like us. You seem rather to despise us. You are not telling us anything interesting. You are nit-picking what we say. Why?

            • Eugenian

              Jillian, I answered your question about why I wrote Jullian. I too thought of the idea of using google, but it is skewed by noteworthy people being named Jillian. So it is pretty meaningless. But then, my family survey is not scientific either.

              I don’t know how this denigrated into a defensive posture on the part of participants in this group. As I began to present alternative views, I was personally attacked, had my motives questioned, and asked to leave a public space. This seems contrary to an interest in free discussion of ideas and their merit.
              I never called anyone names, and don’t think I questioned motive. But if I have, then I apologize as that is not my intention. I merely seek to discover the truth through rational discourse. Is that not possible here?

            • Eugenian

              Jillian, after looking up the spelling of “Jillian” I found the Wikipedia entry for your work. Very impressive. Not that I agree with more than half of the positions stated, but still have a lot of respect for the effort and successes.

              Your cause is a challenging one. Your work on Terrorism reminds me of the time I had my students roleplay “Terrorists” and “Israelis”. What a mistake that was. Each group degenerated into a tribal mentality.

              It’s been interesting engaging. If I had known your past and respect others confer, I would have not had the opportunity to see the interactions of you and those who post here without additional bias. Like sitting on a bus talking with Michael Shermer, and not knowing who he is. Thank you for the good you have done.

            • Don L

              So, your family is stupid too! LOL…Jullian. Was your teaching done in the US of A? Don’t bother replying…I don’t really care.

              Why not answer Jillian’s questions? Reply to her.

            • REALBEING

              No self-esteem, eh?

  • Eugenian

    Hillary’s claim of humble roots is certainly far fetched. Like nearly all political candidates who claim humble roots, she came from a business owning family, even identifying herself as Republican during her college years.
    Yet classical economics argues that the value of something is what people will pay for it. Hillary, like any speaker, commands the price people are willing to pay. Both the service provider and the consumer enter into a mutual agreement in the marketplace. If Hillary did not satisfy the consumer, her reputation would soon be sullied, and her fees would have to drop.
    Whether one agrees with the fees commanded or not, one cannot be a free market capitalist and at the same time claim the fees are excessive. If one thinks the price is too high, one does not have to purchase the product.

    • Eugenian: Of course you are right. A thing is worth what it will fetch on the market. People who bought indulgences from the Catholic Church so that they could sin and not go to Hell believed they were getting value for their money. People who buy carbon dioxide allowances from Al Gore ditto. People who pay to hear Hillary declaim nothing much, value that nothing much or they wouldn’t buy it. We’re just saying we ourselves wouldn’t pay a cent for it. And we’re saying that, like all rich socialists, she is a spanking hypocrite. We despise her for that and much else – we don’t grudge her the money. We wonder about the brains of the people who buy her words – we don’t object to their doing it. We understand that for as long as there are such people, it will pay an institution to engage Hillary to dine and speak, because they will charge hundreds of those people tens of thousands of dollars to eat and listen, and so make a profit. We are all for the making of profit.

      • Eugenian

        Jullian: I pretty much agree. The marketplace sets the value. Romney is down to just $40,000 to $$60,000 a gig.
        As to hypocrisy, the root value you espouse is that one cannot promote a value system if one does not live that system. I call this “The Jesus Principle”. It comes in conservative and liberal forms. It means that unless one lives like Jesus, one cannot cast a stone. Here are the problems with this logic: (1) How does one determine a hypocrite? How many contradictions and how serious must they be to become a hypocrite? How lofty must one’s pronouncements be to establish a hypocritical gap between what one says and what one does? Are we not all hypocrites to some degree? For example, shall we accept the Pope’s admonishment of excesses of wealth when he globe trots on jets?
        Another problem is the logical conclusion that a long as one’s life aligns with one’s teaching, then one is not a hypocrite. Thus, if Hillary were rich AND fought for the rights of the rich, she would not be a hypocrite. Conversely, just how simply must one live to profess a people’s progressive agenda? Ralph Nader comes to mind on that one. Does one get “points” for professing and living a middle income value system? Would we say, “I really agree with her principles because she does, after all, live humbly.”
        Of course, the idea that we can disparage the person for being a hypocrite is a simple way to brush off their arguments without the need for a rebuttal. It says, “You, in my estimation, do not live as you teach, so what you say has no meaning”. This is a logical fallacy.
        For what it is “worth”, you might gain some insight into this problem of labeling hypocrites by reading the Right Wing American Thinker on hypocrisy: “A position either has merit
        or it doesn’t, either a basis in Truth or it doesn’t. The rightness of a position is not determined by the righteousness of a politician.” http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/when_hypocrisy_is_a_good_thing.html

        • liz

          Splitting hairs over what defines a hypocrite is irrelevant. Hillary Clinton is still a socialist, whether she lives up to it in practice or not, and as such her ideas are worthless.

          • Eugenian

            Liz, So often people respond to complicated situations with truisms such as the “splitting hairs” comments above. However, our Founding Fathers designed our republic with three essential principles: An informed citizenry, free speech and a free press. These were guaranteed so that the men (at that time, it was just men), could engage in rational discourse to arrive at an acceptable decision. If we stray from engaging in rational discussion we really do a disservice to those Patriots.
            In terms of socialist, I think Bernie Sanders is much more of a socialist (at least he calls himself such). What has Hillary said that makes you think she is a socialist?

            • liz

              You know what, Eugenian? There are plenty of posts on Hillary Clinton you can look up in the archives on this site, if you are really that ignorant about her.
              Then feel free to come back and lecture us all some more about founding principles and such, from your great troves of superior wisdom.

            • Eugenian

              Who is “us”? Are you speaking for more than yourself?

            • liz

              Everyone you’ve replied to here so far.

            • Eugenian

              OK. You are speaking for them.
              Actually, after some research it seems the Behghazi thing might be good to keep alive. Krauthammer noted it’s potential to detract from other issues like Obamacare, especially if nothing comes of it. Since strong Conservatives in a Pew Poll report getting nearly 50% of their news from Fox, they should look for guidance on whether the issue should be dropped or brought into the 2016 election. I think we’re up to 7 investigations now with another due soon. You gotta give them credit for trying (50 times to stop Obamacare). By 2016 we should start having investigations into why the investigations were flawed.

            • liz

              So you’d like a distraction from the socialist agenda.
              One doesn’t need “guidance” from Fox to recognize that’s what’s being ramrodded down our throats.
              If it succeeds, we’ll be living the socialist dream of Obama, Hillary, and the leftist propaganda mill you apparently take for your news source.

            • Eugenian

              You are assuming by calling it the “leftist propaganda mill” that the editors of numerous papers and electronic media coordinate their stories. What I assume from the heavy reliance on a single source (47% Fox News), is that it is easier to “mill” something with only one production line. As far as this blog goes, it seems to basically be just a regurgitation of the same view – Leftist, Socialists, hate Obama, Hillary, Liberals, etc. I don’t see much search for multiple views, not even so one can at least understand what the public sees as the truth.
              Can you give me some other groups that are considered Leftist?

            • Don L

              You are such an ignorant person:

              Guess, by every definition, what a progressive is? A socialist!

              You should buy Jonah Goldberg’s “The Liberal Fascist” and learn something.

              When you can actually carry on a rational discussion, versus a regurgitation of leftist propaganda, come back. Otherwise, F’ off.

            • Eugenian

              Actually, the Founding Fathers thing is totally my own creation. I usually find the more someone engages in name calling, the more they have lost the argument. It also provides me with a hint of what kind of people are attracted to a particular view. Birds of a feather.

            • Don L

              Labeling you an “ignorant person” isn’t name calling…it is describing you by your posts. If the truth fits, wear it. You have not provided any independent thought…
              merely rhetorical twists on leftist dogma…irrational and disproved. Yet, you persist in this empty kafluffle in an attempt to be worthy of something…you are no thinking person; merely a useful stooge for an ideology proven false. And, F’ off is not name calling…it is an instruction…a verb. When you learn something come back…otherwise the instruction stands. I’m done with you.

            • Eugenian

              I see. Make an accusation then slam the door.

            • Eugenian

              This is really much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r35gAughjc

        • Eugunian: Why are you attacking us? Why are you defending Hillary Clinton? Why are you giving us lessons in logic? Why are you here at all?

          We are obviously never going to be readers of the Huffington Post. Haven’t you gathered that much?

          The gaps and contradictions in the newest report on Benghazi have been pointed out by many commentators. You can find them if you want to. But I guess you don’t want to.

          If your intention is simply to annoy, why?

          If you are about to say you are engaging in open debate, save yourself the trouble. You are doing nothing of the sort. You are needling us. Why?

  • liz

    I really can’t imagine why anyone would want to hear her speak at all, much less fight over tickets for it. “God forbid” that she would ever get elected president.