Hillary as popular as ever....designer T-shirts?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sar

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
95
Location
NYC
HILLARY TRIES ANEW GAMBIT TO RAISE FUNDS
Marc Jacobs Tees Flying Off Shelves
By LUIZA Ch. SAVAGE Staff Reporter of the Sun
E-mail this article

WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton’s newest fund-raising gambit is selling supporters a $55 T-shirt by fashion designer Marc Jacobs, featuring the former first lady’s face in the style of iconic silk-screens of Marilyn Monroe and Chairman Mao.
“Your new wardrobe will reveal only your politics,†is the pitch for the T-shirts that were selling by the hundreds yesterday at the Marc Jacobs flagship store in SoHo and on the Web site friendsofhillary.com.
Dubbed “New York’s dauphin of grungy, understated cool†by Vogue magazine, Mr. Jacobs depicts Mrs. Clinton in contrasting colors of purple, orange, pink, gray, powder blue, red, and brown. His design evokes the Marilyn and Mao portrait series created by popartist Andy Warhol in the 1960s and ’70s.
“Most curators and people who have written about his work see it as making a pop star into an icon,†said the assistant curator at the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, Matt Wrbican.
“Some people consider the repetition to be about things that are boring,†he added.
Each limited-edition shirt comes with a Marc Jacobs “I •Hillary†tag sewn inside and was printed by a union printer, according to Friends of Hillary.
The T-shirts are manufactured in Los Angeles by the American Apparel company, which markets itself as “sweatshop-free †and offers its workers $10-an-hour wages and perks such as free massages. The company says it is creating a “new American dream†and “advancing a hyper capitalist-socialist business fusion,†but a major labor union accuses it of old-fashioned “union-busting.â€
The project came about several months ago when the Marc Jacobs company president, Robert Duffy, approached Mrs. Clinton’s campaign committee, Friends of Hillary, said a political aide to Mrs. Clinton, Patti Solis Doyle.
“They said they love Hillary and wanted to do this,†she said. “Hillary was flattered and pleased, and we were happy to be able to get it done.â€
A spokeswoman for Mr. Jacobs confirmed the account, but declined to comment further yesterday.
In a statement, Mr. Duffy said,“Senator Clinton is smart,compassionate,fair, and knows how to work with everyone in the interest of getting things done. She is the type of person I would like to have leading New York into the future!â€
While Mr. Jacobs’s T-shirts can sell for hundreds of dollars, the longsleeved version of the Clinton shirt sells for $60 and the short-sleeved one is $5 less. All payments are considered campaign contributions.
Federal law restricts individual campaign contributions to a political campaign to a maximum of $2,000, but there is no limit on gifts of high-priced fashion design or brand imprimatur.
“As long as the fashion designer is not getting paid [by the campaign] or by someone else, he can donate his talents,†said a Federal Election Commission spokesman, Ian Stirton.
The FEC treats Mr. Jacobs’s labors identically to those of campaign volunteers who make phone calls or canvass door-to-door for political candidates,he said.
“Whatever talents you bring are your business,†he said.
The Web site said the T-shirts are a “collector’s item.â€
Ms. Doyle said the number ordered would depend on demand.The Web site had received 200 orders by midday yesterday. “They’re very cute,†she said.
Asked to speculate whether Warhol, who died in 1987, would create a portrait of the senator if he were still alive, the Warhol Museum’s Mr. Wrbican answered “probably.â€
He said the artist and filmmaker would create portraits “if it was a commission.â€
Warhol’s oeuvre includes portraits of the Kennedys and the Carters, as well as a portrait of President Richard Nixon rendered in what Mr. Wrbican termed “hideous greens and oranges.†The Nixon portrait was captioned, “Vote McGovern.â€
Mrs. Clinton said in a statement that she is “very excited†about the T-shirts, which she called “such a fun and fashionable way to support our efforts.â€
“This opportunity is indicative of the innovative approach people like Marc are taking to support change in our country,†she said.
Ms. Doyle said Mrs. Clinton had recently visited a Marc Jacobs store in New York, but she said she was not privy to what, if anything, the senator purchased.
This is not the first time a politician has appropriated the Warhol look to raise funds.
Plastered on T-shirts during the 2001 Massachusetts gubernatorial race was a Warholesque series of faces of Steven Grossman. Mr. Grossman later attracted attention as the national campaign chairman of Howard Dean who abruptly and publicly left the Dean campaign this week.
A Democratic political consultant, Adam Hurtubise, who worked on the Grossman campaign, called Mrs. Clinton’s T-shirts “a terrific move.â€
“Andy Warhol was very serious but he didn’t want people to take him too seriously.This is in the same vein,â€he said of Mrs. Clinton’s foray into fashion. “She’s doing a great job as senator,but she’s not afraid to use a little bit of self-deprecating humor.â€
The T-shirts left one group ill-humored, however.
Officials at the New York-based Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, Unite, said they faced “a vicious anti-union campaign†last autumn when they tried to unionize the Los Angeles plant of American Apparel, the T-shirts’ manufacturer.
“She should use a company that respects workers’ rights to organize,†a Unite spokesman, Steve Wishart, said of Mrs. Clinton.
Unite officials emphasized that they consider Mrs. Clinton to be a wellmeaning “friend of labor,†but they complained that American Apparel was dining out on a reputation for social consciousness that they said is illdeserved.
While conceding that the $10 dollar an hour average wages paid to the company’s workers are high by industry standards, the union said workers complained about a lack of paid leave days, an exhausting pace of work, and lack of job security.
American Apparel last week settled a union-busting complaint that Unite had made to the National Labor Relations Board.
A senior partner in American Apparel, Dov Charney, said the union’s allegations are “ludicrous†and that their complaint was a “sham†driven by selfinterest.
He said his company has waiting list of 2,000 workers because his wages are three times as high as in other Los Angeles garment factories.
“I have people begging me to hire their relatives,†he said.
The 35-year-old entrepreneur said he gives workers his cell phone number and maintains an open door policy on complaints.
He said his company has been targeted because it shows the unions are not necessary to create a positive work environment.
“Unions are one model, and there are other models of cooperation. We are passionate about making sure our workers love working at the company,†he said. “This is a huge success story that challenges the concept that in order for a company to claim that its workers are well treated they have to be unionized.
He said Unite is seeking union dues to support “their huge bureaucracy and political interests.â€
“It’s a huge conspiracy to funnel money to their political candidates who then owe them a favor,†he said.
Mr. Charnery said his company is “paving a Third Wayâ between socialism and capitalism.
He encourages his workers to participate in immigration rights rallies, and provide free English as a second language classes, but acknowledges he does not provide paid vacations because he is competing with sweat shops “that don’t even pay minimum wage.â€
 
what we REALLY need

is "our" own T-shirt design featuring Hillary. Combine that with a pithy antigun quote of hers, and someone could make millions.
 
I like JFH's idea. How about this quote?

"...certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position..." - Hillary Clinton

I think that would go over like a turd in a punch bowl, don't you?

:evil: :D
 
fjolnirsson,

You don't happen to have a time and location for that quote, do you? It would be ever so much more powerful if you did...
 
Ok, I found it. It actually wasn't from an anti-gun speech, but it does speak volumes for her overall world-view, and I would love to see it on a t-shirt.

Hillary's views on marriage were spelled out back in 1974 in an article she wrote for the Harvard Educational Review: "The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency relationship [i.e., wives and children] is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system."
 
Thanks for doing the homework, fjolnirsson

For it to have punch, that needs to be edited.

IMHO, this is the "punchiest" version without distorting her position.

certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves

We also need the actual date of "utterance", publication, whatever....

And a good drawing/sketch of her head.

Any one else have a lead on good quotes from Sweet Hillary? There's got to be others that can be used as well for consideration.
 
Yes, thank you for finding that. Now we need Oleg to come up with a good image of her, and attributing that quote to her, then some tee shirts...

:evil:
 
Um, excuse me!

The quote, in context, shows pretty clearly that Hillary Clinton doesn't support such a rationale. To believe that, you have to believe that she also supports slavery.

The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency relationship [i.e., wives and children] is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system."

I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but it's very intellectually dishonest to extract a partial quote and change the meaning completely.

Here's another example:

What if I said this:

"Gun-grabbers want to take away our guns because they believe that people with guns will inevitably use them for evil."

If you took a partial quote, "People with guns will inevitably use them for evil," well, that sure changes the meaning, doesn't it?

Come on, people. The democratic party has said plenty of truly idiotic things. We don't need to make them up.
 
MPayne,

I'm sorry, I've reread it three times now.

It sounds (reads) to me as though she does approve of slavery.

How do you interpret it differently?

David Row
San Diego
 
I originally read it as dav does, but if I look at it differently, it could be Hillary saying that it's inappropriate to create any kind of "dependancy relationship", including, but not limited to: marriage, children, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.

Or, I guess another way could be that it's inappropriate in some circumstances, and appropriate in others. Marriage, children, slavery and the Indian reservation system are all examples of "dependant relationships".

Thinking about it, we probably need a copy of the whole article (it was an article she wrote, right?) to properly determine her views.
 
atk, I do agree that it can be read that way, too.

But, by lumping those instances together in that manner, it appears that she is either anti-marriage, or pro-slavery.

I don't see any way around that.
 
I have to agree with Dave. At the very least, she's saying that she believes that certain people cannot take care of themselves without the prop of certain social institutions. I read that to mean the welfare state, nanny state, gun-free zone. Things that she has pushed and supported throughout her career.

If you want to learn about hillary and her life and times, read Hell to Pay. It goes pretty far to paint an unflattering picture of her but I don't think it paints an unfair picture.

YMMV,

Scott
 
this is the nature of political rhetoric

Mpayne: I have re-read her quote several times now, and generally my analysis of it falls down much through the reactions posted immediately after yours.

I think you are filling in with a response of your own to derive the belief that she supports slavery--e.g., that no one in our society would willingly support such an institution.

I also happen to agree that such a conclusion--i.e., that she supports slavery--suggests that using her quote as I proposed is, at best, 'twisting' the meaning of what she said.

And that, I submit, is the nature of political discourse in this day and age.

Given the extremely well-done rhetoric of her statements in many other comments, your re-statement is equally speculative--but 'probably more probable' in what she "really meant."

But, consider this: these kind of statements are made by politicians and are used in public discourse precisely BECAUSE they are open to such multiple meanings--(as we all know, her husband is a past master of that skill--the finest of any politician)--and she is nearly as skilled. To take them "out of context" is availing ourselves of what she intended in the first place--e.g., eliciting a certain emotional reaction--but emphasizing the inherent contradictions of her a priori assumptions.

At best, we can say that we need the much greater context of her entire article to determine her "real" meaning--but I think you are applying undue restrictions not to what she intended, but what be deduced from her statements.

If her construction is such that 'wrong' conclusions can be logically deduced from her statements, what is wrong with that?

So, is there a pithy resource for Hillary quotes?
 
WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton’s newest fund-raising gambit is selling supporters a $55 T-shirt by fashion designer Marc Jacobs, featuring the former first lady’s face in the style of iconic silk-screens of Marilyn Monroe and Chairman Mao.

Fifty-five dollars is awful expensive for unperforated toilet paper, isn't it?...:scrutiny:
 
Sorry, folks, if you read the full quote provided above it's pretty clear that she is NOT saying it's OK to take away rights. She's saying that marriage (which she compares to slavery!) does just that and describing what she sees as the rationalel.

Without her fluff, the quote says that the reason most women accept being married to most men (since this is so awful as to require explanation) is that they have been conditioned to believe that they are too stupid to survive on their own.

It's not a terribly flattering thing to have said in itself, but also not very uncommon for a young feminist in the 1970's.
 
Whatever for the T-shirt, but my fave bumper sticker s:

Run, Hillary, Run!

If you like her, put it on the reaer bumper.

If you don't, put it on your front bumper. :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top