Bon Jovi Flies With Obama on Air Force One

(larger version here).

President Obama was in New York last night for three fundraisers. Jon Bon Jovi, who attended all three and headlined the event at the Waldorf, was the President's guest on the Air Force One flight from Washington, DC to New York and back at the end of the evening. Some people (Obama) get all the luck.

Bon Jovi has been a huge supporter of Democratic candidates for more than a decade. In 2007, the New York Times wrote about his strong support for Hillary. He enthusiastically supported Obama when she withdrew from the race. [More...]

From the New York Times article:

Mr. Bon Jovi and Mrs. Clinton have been known to delve into issues like affordable housing and his work building homes with Habitat for Humanity in Philadelphia. But their conversations are not always so heavy. “She seems to really like to hear me play,” Mr. Bon Jovi said.

Mr. Bon Jovi donated $2,300 to Mrs. Clinton this year, as much as he is allowed to under the law. “I have no issue with a woman in power,” he said. “My life has always been run by women. If it wasn’t my mother, it was my wife. And if it wasn’t my wife it was my daughter.”

The White House said taxpayers did not pay for Jon Bon Jovi's seat on the plane -- the Obama campaign did. The fundraisers are expected to bring in $4 million. Bill Clinton was also in attendance.

Bon Jovi helped Hillary reduce her campaign debt and raised $1 million for John Kerry at a fundraiser at his home. For Obama's inauguration, he played at the Commander-in-Chief's ball as well as the ceremony.

He's got the best face in rock, even at 50. (I may be his biggest fan west of the Mississippi.) Here's one of my favorite Bon Jovi videos -- I love the message, the images (RFK, MLK, Jr, Princess Diana, kids in Africa to name a few) the words ("Walking beside the guilty and the innocent, how will you raise your hand when they call your name?") and the upbeat music. (Click on the full screen symbol to see the images.)

He closed his Waldorf performance with Here Comes the Sun.

Bon Jovi has a long history of philanthropic work, in addition to his political support, including his Soul Kitchen and building of houses in Philadelphia. Check out his Soul Foundation website. Here's what he said in 2005 about his thoughts on politicians and why he won't be one.

My favorite Bon Jovi live performance (other than the one in Denver in 2010) is probably the 2007 Live Earth show which had simultaneous concerts around the world. Here's Living on a Prayer, Wanted Dead or Alive, Lost Highway and It's My Life.

If you thought this post was going to be about Obama and the election, sorry. But your comments about them are welcome.

< Monday Open Thread | Cuomo Endorses Bill to Reduce Marijuana Arrests >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It'a not just that he has (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:48:31 AM EST
    the "best face," it's an incredibly nice face.  It's pretty darn rare to have a male celebrity with such pretty looks also have as open and natural and just plain nice a face as he has.  It's quite a devastating combination.

    That smile and those eyes... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:06:59 AM EST
    he look like he has a happy soul.

    perfect fit (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jharp on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:00:46 AM EST
    We've got Bon Jovi and they have Ted Nugent.

    So fitting.

    Depends (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:17:08 AM EST
    If I was going to a party I'd take Bon Jovi.

    If I was going into the wilderness I'd take Nugent.


    Not me (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    Depends on for how long I am int he wilderness I guess. On a short trip where I bring my own food, the off chance I need a hunter would not be worth putting up with Nugent's company.

    Well, I'm not sure that either (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    of their real selves match their public images..

    And then I'd like to know there wouldn't be anything of that Deliverance kinda thing...



    I know liberals who are (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    Excellent shots, good hunters, and could survive fairly easily in the wilderness.  And I know conservatives who wouldn't know one end of a shotgun or rifle from the other and would run screaming if they ever saw a bear, or even a raccoon.  It all depends.    ;-)

    I just keep Obama's campaign themes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:56:00 AM EST
    of "fairness" in mind when I read all of these reports of how much fun it is to campaign for president.

    ??? Why is that? n/t (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    If there's one thing I've learned (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CST on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:09:32 AM EST
    from following discussions about fairness with conservatives:

    If you are rich you have no say in the matter because rich people can't understand or care about others.

    If you aren't rich you have no say in the matter because it's not your money that's being raised in taxes.

    So basically no one can talk about fairness without being a hypocrit.  Or something.


    I'm sorry but if you can't see the hypocrisy (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    in Obama then you don't want to.

    He spent three weeks bashing Bain then went back to private equity with his hand out.

    Then on the worst jobs day of the year his campaign puts out this web add.   I thought it was a Jimmy Kimmel skit at first.  No way Obama could put this out and not have people think he's a hypocrite.

    Guess I'm wrong.


    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    why asking for money from someone after you bash them is that bad.  It's better than asking for the money first.  They are free to give their money or not, it's not like they don't know what he is going to do with it at this point.  Unfortunately for the state of democracy, money still has a huge role in politics.  Frankly, what you are suggesting is that a politician should either be beholden to whoever gives them money, or they shouldn't ask for money at all.  I'd be okay with the second half of that, but I don't see it happening any time soon the way elections are run in this country.  The best-case scenario right now is that they take the money but aren't beholden to it.

    I can't look at the web ad now, but I'll check it out later.  In any event, is there anyone in politics who you think is allowed to talk about fairness?

    No, Obama isn't Jesus, or Ghandi, or anyone else who practiced self-sacrifice in the name of a cause.  Yes, he's a hypocritical politician, what else is new.  That doesn't mean fairness is the wrong cause.  And, IMO, the more the president of the U.S. talks about (and acts on) said cause, the better.

    We play this game every election, whether it's Kerry windsurfing, or Bush hunting and playing golf, or what have you.  Yes, politicians are rich, and they aren't like the rest of us.  Yes, to a degree that matters in that they are not in touch with what it's like for the rest of us.  But I for one am not going to bash them when they talk about economic inequality.  Because then no one powerfull ever would - since most powerfull people tend to be rich.  It's a lot better than sitting there with their silver spoon and telling the rest of us to eat cake, like the GOP is so fond of doing.


    "The problem is this" (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
    Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, "Who Really Cares," cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The "generosity index" from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    where to start (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:39:53 PM EST
    I think it's mostly a question of philosophy.  Speaking as a northeast liberal, I tend to think the government should be responsible for those actions, and we tax ourselves accordingly, and, IMO, we accomplish the goals of philanthropy through government a lot better than the southern states have been doing with their church donations.

    All this aside, I fail to see how your comment relates back to whether or not a politician (who is by default rich) can talk about fairness.  Unless you mean to suggest that liberals such as myself shouldn't talk about it.  I assure you, my conscience is clear on the philanthropy question.


    I should have been more clear (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    the sentiments you offered in your concluding sentance have been proven by various studies to be claptrap.

    From the article (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches -- that a fair amount of that money isn't helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

    It's true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

    According to Google's figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    article, and clearly shows that the "sliver spoons and cake" criticisms are nothing but partisan claptrap.

    I was referring to politicians (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    not the populace as a whole, most of whom do not fall into that category.  But the people you elect to office sure do.

    Oh, politicians. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    I really am ignorant on how much any politician contributes to charitable organizations, etc, are you saying the Repub pols give significantly less than Dem pols?

    Now you are just confusing things (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    I realize you were referring to my concluding sentance.  That was the part I was referring to politicians.  That is the government policy that they promote for this country.  I think "let them eat cake" is very applicable to the "cut taxes for rich people and food stamps/retirement/healthcare for everyone else" platform.  YMMV.

    "YYMV." Clearly it does! (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:14:06 PM EST
    ...er, "YMMV"... (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    Red States/Conservatives tend ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    ... to attend/contribute to their churches/religious groups in higher percentages, which accounts for more than the difference between the groups.

    The vast majority of money donated to churches is used for operating expenses (building, maintenance, salaries, utilities, etc.), not charitable purposes.


    Which, also according to Brooks (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:35:04 PM EST
    The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

    Link - George Will (yes, I know)

    Of course, that Kristoff article (and the Brooks' book it refers to) are from 2008.


    Willet's opinion (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:09:33 PM EST
    I'm not buying based on a study from "registered independent" (heh) Brooks, but I'm not surprised that Willet agrees with him.

    Because of Original Sin? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    they've gone beyond the rich lately when it comes those who aren't able to understand and care for others: now the category includes educated "elites"; who can't possibly identify with, and have nothing but disdain for, us salt-of-the-earth, real Americans in fly-over country..  

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#14)
    by star on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    can we expect an RNC ad "While Rome burns...."

    First the $40000 a plate dinner with Clooney right after 'evolving' on gay marriage, the the ad with Sarah J Parker and the Vouge woman on the day unemployment goes up and flying around with Bon Jovi
    on the same day O 'tweeted' his support for Barrett in WI .....

    Is it going to be difficult to pin the "out of touch" label to millionaire Mitt at this rate ??

    This is similar (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    to the Right wing hypocrisy displayed when Warren Buffet went public with his premise that our tax system is unfair, and that rich people should pay more. "Nobody's stopping him from writing a check to the Government," yukked the amoeba brained Fox Echo Chamber.

    The simple sad truth is that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to run for the Presidency. $10 on-line contributions won't quite cut it. The fact that Obama solicits funds from the very wealthy is an issue of nuance and proportionality.

    He can take their money and still propose some limitations in the manner that they may accumulate their wealth, vs. the republicans way which is, "Thanks for the dough, here's the keys to the country."

    The question is (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    Will he?

    I wonder how many (none / 0) (#26)
    by DizzyMissL on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    poor people the campaign could have fed with the money they spent on that seat.

    does any political campaign (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:47:17 PM EST
    spend its money feeding poor people?

    If you have nothing pertinent to say, and just want to criticize Obama, please don't bother.


    I can't imagine that (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    the incremental cost of JBJ flying on the plane was significant.  He's not that heavy, I don't think they needed to add extra fuel or more food than they normally stock.  

    Did he play any Union songs? (none / 0) (#32)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    The timing of this seems pretty awkward to me.

    I haven't been following it that closely, but I haven't heard anything about Bon Jovi, or Bruce Springsteen, or John Mellencamp or any of the really big names making any significant performances to rally the troops for that Wisconsin thingie today.