Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves Full’ 
Yahoo CEO Foresees Big Opportunities To Sell Ads On Tumblr 
Cannes: Keanu Reeves Presents Directorial Debut & … 
Disney, Lucasfilm Animation Prep ‘Star Wars … 
Cannes: Deadline Crashes Palais Forum With Costa Gavras, … 
Yahoo Announces $1.1B Tumblr Deal With Vow “Not To … 
Hammond On Cannes: Sun Comes Out As Parties, Deals And … 
Kelly Rowland, Paulina Rubio In Talks To Join ‘X … 
Cannes: Latest Theft Affects China Film Group VP 
UPDATE: Yahoo Board OKs $1.1B Deal To Acquire Tumblr … 
‘Epic’ Toon Begins $14.5M Overseas Rollout 
Cannes: Sony Classics Wins Stateside Rights To Asghar … 
‘Fast & Furious 6′ Breaks Records In … 
Specialty Box Office: ‘Frances Ha’ Triumphs As … 
‘Saturday Night Live’ Season Finale Posts … 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $164.5M Global: Lower … 
Cannes: Backup Media, Memento Bring Heat To Fest Helmer Jim … 
Cannes: Sundance Selects Acquires Dardenne Brothers’ … 
Cannes: Wrekin Hill Acquires U.S. On Gabriele … 
Bill Hader’s ‘SNL’ Stefon Farewell: Video 
Cannes: The Weinstein Co. Books ‘Suite … 
I’ve just received this statement from Harvey Weinstein’s people about today’s CNN report that the ardent Hillary Clinton supporter tried to strongarm House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to embrace his effort to finance a re-vote of the Democratic presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan. “While Harvey has the greatest respect for Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker’s work on behalf of the country and her success in taking the House back for Democrats in 2006, he did convey that it is in the best interest of Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and the historic values of the Democratic Party to find a way to re-vote Florida and Michigan and not disenfranchise millions of voters. Harvey believes the only way Democrats can lose the presidency in 2008 is by repeating what happened in 2000 – and not count all the votes. Harvey assumes that all Democrats stand united behind the principle that everyone should have the opportunity to vote.”
It’s rare that I agree with Harv on anything Hollywood, and certainly I continually disapprove of his bullyboy tactics, but on this issue I think Weinstein is right. Florida and Michigan Democrats should be allowed to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama no matter if it’s too late to affect the ultimate winner. What’s more is that lost in this CNN story is a very promising idea: Weinstein’s offer to raise money so that both states can hold proper primary elections since the Democratic party keeps saying there’s no money to fund them. “Harvey is very passionate about this issue. He was knee-deep in it in 2000,” a Weinstein insider reminds me. “He now feels it’s important for Democrats to count everyone’s vote. The real story is Harvey looking to get a group together to finance it in Michigan and Florida. This is not about Hillary and Obama but about the party and consistency.”
CNN’s White House correspondent Ed Henry broke a story about how our moviemaking pal tried to bully House Speaker Nancy Pelosi late last month. (Seriously, does she really think she’s deserves better treatment from Weinstein than, say, Hollywood directors and actors?) The CNN report says Weinstein had a heated phone call with Pelosi late last month during which Harv threatened to cut off campaign money to congressional Democrats unless Pelosi embraced a new plan by the movie mogul to finance a revote of the Democratic presidential primaries in Florida and Michigan. CNN cites three officials who were briefed on the contents of the conversation as the sources for its report:
“The three officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the private phone conversation, said Weinstein appeared determined to buy Clinton more time in her battle against Barack Obama by pushing for the revote and pressing Pelosi to back off her previous comments that superdelegates should support the candidate who’s leading in pledged delegates in early June.”
After the report aired, Weinstein called CNN today to “vehemently” deny that he issued any threats. “Never, ever was the thought about denying funding to Democrats,” he told the cable news network. That denial was repeated to me today as well.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I normally try to avoid political issues but I have to ask: Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the reasons why Florida and Michigan were disqualified?
They didn’t change the dates of their primaries, in deliberate defiance of the mandates of the party, for the sake of democracy, civil rights, or human liberties.
They did it to get more media attention.
That’s a terribly petty and shallow reason, and shows a problem with the leadership of those state parties.
Weinstein is a douche.
Florida and Michigan broke the rules. I don’t care if Clinton or Obama or Dennis-Freakin’-Kucinich beneifts from this. Voters in these states shouldn’t be mad at the candidates (though Hilary’s screeching desperation is growing increasingly pathetic by the minute), but rather the Democratic Party bosses in their neck of the woods. It’s ironic that these two states insisted on being pushed to the front of the line when it’s late-in-the-game states like North Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania who took the spotlight this time around. If the two states are allowed to submit delegates, it only serves as a horrible precedent that every other state should be allowed to do what they want, damn the rules.
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya of THE PRINCESS BRIDE: “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Disenfranchise is a word thrown around far too much these days. It’s like when a network bleeps out part of an Oscar speech and people scream “censorship!” When the government does it, yes, it’s censorship. When the network does it, it’s editing.
When the government restricts or eliminates a certain group of voters (ala Jim Crowe laws or arguably state laws requiring photo ID) that is being disenfranchised.
When a political party enforces its own rules and due processes, that is not being “disenfranchised.” It’s called “sour grapes.” If Florida and Michigan wanted their votes counted, they should’ve followed the rules and not leap-frogged the line to have their primaries. The elected party officials of each state were well aware of the consequences of thier actions but decided to flaunt the rules anyway.
If the race wasn’t so close, if it was a blowout for either candidate, I strongly doubt Harvey Weinstein or Nikki would be wringing their hands over the “disenfranchisement” of Florida and Michigan voters.
Rules are rules.
Ditto!!! Some of Clinton’s campaign staffers were part of the DNC committee that made the rules — that Florida and Michigan BROKE. She was fine with the rules, until her campaign needed to find a way to win.
Disenfranchised voters would be the people who voted for a candidate only to have another candidate win because you change the rules at the end of the game.
The reps of those two states disqualified themselves. The idea that those two states have been somehow pushed aside is not true. They made a mistake, their votes don’t count and we need to move on.
It’s unfortunate but there are rules to voting and how states conduct themselves during a voting season.
Interpretations of the Clinton campaigns comments about MI and FL should read like this:
“I was happy to be a team player for the DNC when I was the “inevitable” nominee and leading the polls. Now that I’m losing I want to change the rules and metrics for victory so that I still have a remote shot. I learned the tactic from President Bush and the war in Iraq so now I care more about the popular vote than delegates even though that’s not what it takes to win in the rules. Did I mention I care more about personal power than my political party? If I can’t win I’ll take you all down with me you fuckers”
The real irony is that Clinton’s campaign now revolves around what built Obama to success…..hope.
I have new respect for Weinstein. Go, Harvey!
It is Obama who is sour grapes – he took his name off Michigan because he knew he wouldn’t win, and did it under the guise of a higher principle. So sick of phony Obama dressing up his venal motivations under the guise of a higher road.
It is fantastic that Pelosi is Speaker, but she has been disappointingly ineffective and rarely says anything of import.
Also, folks, please retire the word “douche.” You might think you are being hip and current, but the word is overused, unimaginative, and offensive under any circumstance. No surprise it came from a sexist Hillary hater. “screeching” ?? Give us a break.
The whole process of staggered primaries is absurd and corrupt to begin with.
douche? screeching? someone’s a misogynist!!
actually, bush screeches
and barack “preaches” — which is even worse
if barack gets the nomination, the dems can kiss the presidency buh-bye yet again.
If Wienstein ‘Really’ cared a damn about people he’d realize it was in the best interest of American’s that Bully’s like himself but the hell out of Politics.
Why doesn’t he do something good, like raise money for a cause. Feed the hungry, cloth the needy. Instead he wants to reward a millionaire. Funny?
Florida and Michigan were wrong to more their primary’s up. Should they be rewarded with money from that FAT EGOMANIAC.
Well said, Nikki.
I would hope Harvey Weinstein would use his “millions” to keep his floundering company afloat instead of bottoming out… once again.
Wow– it only took an hour to be branded a misogynist by the doomed pro-Hilary crowd. Thank God I didn’t use any of Hilary’s racist rhetoric (“working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” are her base, she said this morning) that not only just drove away her black supporters and drove the final nail in her coffin this round, but may cost her a Senate seat in 2012.
Regardless who you support, bullies like Weinstein are exactly the kind of big-ticket donors who end up alienating voters by throwing their weight (and in Harvey’s case, it’s considerable) around to get their way. Save the tantrums for your next round of “Project Greenlight,” Harvey.
It’s looking like McCain will be our next Prez, so hopefully Harvey can pull it off.
We will never vote Obama.
Memo to JD: It’s Jim Crow; no E. Learn some history, and learn to SPELL. Otherwise, I agree with most of what you said.
And can we please desist with the knee-jerk “misogynist” harrangue every time someone criticizes Senator Clinton? Or “racist” charge every time someone criticizes Senator Obama? It’s a little tiresome, and distracts us from the real issues, such as why neither candidate is calling for the legalization of drugs. But I digress.
If I were a Senator Clinton supporter, I suppose I would try to find a way to argue legitimately that the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated. However, as an Obama supporter, I keep coming back to this niggling detail: These were the rules that everyone agreed to, so that’s the way it should be.
However: I think it’s bad for the party–whether or not it was fair and reasoned in its decision–to APPEAR as if they are dissing Michigan and Florida, and a way should be found to seat them and let them vote. I would even go so far as to say this, even though it could harm the candidate I prefer: Let Senator Clinton have the delegates she would have won in Florida and Michigan had the results been legitimate, IF–every superdelegate votes according to how their voting district voted, and let that decide the race.
Then, everyone’s happy: Superdelegates vote the will of the people, rather than coming across as back-room cigar-smoking fat cats and money-grubbing party hacks; Michigan and Florida are represented; democracy is served.
This is the perfect (PERFECT!) example of the egocentric Hollywood attitude that Actors, Directors and Producers are more important than anyone else in the universe and that their opinions should be more valued.
I guess it should be okay to blatantly break the rules if you have an A-list producer on your side.
I think Weinstein should skip the time-consuming process of a new vote, skip the general election and simply send out a mandate that Hillary Clinton IS the next president. Then he can save all that money for for the liver and heart transplants he’s going to need in the next 5 years. It costs a lot of money to push your name up to the top of the donor line.
Well, geesh. First off, the notion that Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot becuz he thought he coudn’t win is demonstrably false. In other words, a lie. Second, JD is right, the two states, or rather their political leadership, have no one to blame but themselves. If folks don’t like the staggered primary process? Then change it. Don’t like the order of the primaries? Ditto.
By breaking the rules they left themselves open to sanctions. The notion that this should be ignored so that Hillary — the Democratic party’s Psycho Ex-Girlfriend — can pretend she has a chance at the nomination for a couple extra weeks is both absurd and a waste of time.
Time better spent preparing for the general election, btw.
I never tire of seeing shrill, Westside/Valley “concern trolls” posing as Hills supporters opening their mouth without ever once employing their brain.
Your motorized moving goalposts are out of battery power, you harridans.
The Clinton era is closing. Deal. We have to start cleaning up the mess that the Repugs and the greedy, spineless DLC-Vichy-Democrat enablers have created. Stop before you hurt yourselves and if you are actually Democrats (which I doubt) get your squinty eyes on the big picture, please.
Barack Obama is #44.
Private capital has become integral to the successful waging of a political campaign, however, taxpayers through their government pay for the elections themselves. Introducing private capital into the process of paying for a vote for public office to take place – even a partisan primary vote, even with the absolute best of intentions – would set an extremely dangerous precedent for the republic. Such private financing of the very levers of democracy would place the legitimacy of the vote in grave peril.
Clinton’s current demand that the delegations be seated based on a flawed vote must be rejected. Voter behavior in the various states throughout the campaign have, with few exceptions, shown that as the two candidates campaign hard in a state, the race tightens. Obama was down by 20 points or more in Pennsylvania six weeks before that primary, for example, and he lost by roughly 10 points. Texas was even closer. A few weeks before that, in California, Obama started way down in the polls and pulled to a tie in the non-absentee vote. There is nothing in the statistics to indicate that Clinton would have carried Michigan or Florida by landslides had the campaigns been competing on the ground.
If the Democrats are smart about it – and I believe they will be (I’m registered decline-to-state, so I’m not a member of any political party) – they will, after one of the two remaining candidates has solidified their hold on the nomination, find a fair formula to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.
Go ahead, enforce the DNC rules and see which way FL and MI voters swing in November. Whether you are for BO or HRC the DNC and the local party members vastly underestimated the importance of the respective state delegates. If anyone is to blame for this is Dean for allowing this mess to start and the rest of the DNC leadership for allowing this to fester and grow. Rules are rules but as V.I. Lenin once said: “They are like pie crusts…They are meant to be broken.” Ya’ll DHD readers are suddenly ‘law-and-order’ types?
Wouldn’t matter either way, knock yourself out, Harv. I’ve seen at least one poll, dating all the way back to March, which had Obama tied with Clinton at 41%. Even if they did a re-do to appease the increasingly desperate Clinton campiagn, SHE CANNOT WIN. This race was over in February. Imagine the embarrassment the Clintons would have to deal with if they held another election and she lost outright?
There are much more important things that CNN chooses to ignore, too many battles for us to fight. If I were in Harvey’s position, I’d offer CNN all the money it would cost to do ONE FREAKIN STORY about Sibel Edmonds.
Karen Thurman, head of the Florida Democratic Party, on March 17, 2008, said the following: “A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it’s simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the party were to pay for it.”
On April 4, 2008, the Executive Committee of the Michigan Democratic Party issued the following release: “The Michigan Democratic Party has carefully reviewed several proposals for a Party-run primary or caucus as a means of resolving the dispute over the seating of the Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus.”
We moved beyond the issue of a do-over in Florida and Michigan two months ago not because of money, but because the Michigan Democratic Party and Florida Democratic Party said it wasn’t going to happen. If Weinstein was calling Pelosi in April about a re-vote, he was both a bit too late and talking to the wrong person.
It is clear that Clinton supporters applaud Weinstein’s plan here and Obama supporters reject it. So let me ask for some common sense. Is it okay for someone to raise the money needed to hold an election if that same person supports one of the candidates in that election? Not in this country it isn’t. And I have not seen where Obama has ever been against holding primaries in MI and FL. These states broke party rules, and in a later attempt to reconcile with the DNC and revote, they could not come to an agreement. No, this isn’t fair to the voters in these states, but unless they can agree to an absolutely fair election then it’s not fair to the candidates either.
harvey,
I guess Hillary is just like you. Hillary is not about positive change for America. She is about what’s good for Hillary. Example: February 2003. Bush is ramping up war against Iraq. I along with hundreds of thousands of other New Yorkers protested by the U.N and millions of others across the nation and around the world protested and knew this was a war of choice and not of need.
I assumed the newly elected Senator from New York Hillary Clinton would be there to show support against this needless war. Instead she chose to not show up at all, be silent, and sneakily vote for the provision to go to war.
Why?
Because she was more concerned about her elect-ability in 2008 then what was right and what was wrong!
Has she apologized? On the contrary she plays the dumb blond and says she didn’t know. Puhleeeze!!!!
I can’t possibly vote for someone like that in such an important decision as the President of the United States of America.
The only people who could, I suppose, vote for Hillary are people like you who only care about themselves and not the others around you.
Go ahead Harvey, go down with that ship.
The idea that we have election that is sponsored by corporate interests is disgusting and I am surprised by its support. Why would I as a voter want any coproration to have more information than they already have? It brings more questions than answers.
Also it seems to be overlooked that the Republican legislatures that control both FLA and MI have no desire for revotes.
I am a little suprised that you thought this solution was a viable one.