Harvey Weinstein to the Rescue
I've tangled with some bullies in my life, but Harvey Weinstein is surely at the top of my list. When I sold the film Shine to one of his rivals, he hunted me down at dinner in Sundance and put me up against the wall. He doesn't like to be on the losing team and his long time relationship with the Clintons has him staring defeat in the face. So what does he do? He threatens Nancy Pelosi to cut off the money to the DCCC unless she personally embraces his plan to privately finance a new primary for Florida and Michigan.
Since Harvey and Bill Clinton's other patron (who are they, Bill?) are going to finance this little oligopolistic fiasco, I assume they will also be in charge of counting the votes. General Pinochet would be proud.
Advertisement
Yet again, more unsupported innuendo about Bill Clinton's finances from Jonathan Taplin.
JT -- wasn't one of the original plans for Michigan and Florida to get George Soros to finance revotes? Soros refused so the matter was dropped. Is Weinstein's money any worse than Soros' money?
It's true, Weinstein is being a baby, but to use that to compare the Clintons to Pinochet is pretty damned weak.
May 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feels a bit like piling on, doesn't it?
May 9, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way Taplin does it, yes. It would be so easy to make the case he's making without the unjustified name calling.
But Taplin can't help himself. The irony is, he's complained about bullies in two posts now. Weinstein's a bully. The Clinton's are running an intimidation campaign. People send him nasty emails. And what does he do in his posts? Compares Clinton to Pinochet.
It's hard to see that Taplin is any better than Weinstein. It's just that Weinstein has more money and influence.
May 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like a pile of something else entirely.
May 9, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weinstein is an American hero.
The media has been bought out by anti environment,
corporate interests. By fossil fuel interests. By Arab money.
The same dudes who jeered off Al Gore in 2000 are trying
to end HRC.
The Clintons had an outstanding record on environmental
protection.
The democratic blogs were paid to purge themselves of
Clinton supporters, and the proprietors were threatened
with doom if they did not go along.
One blog remains who will tell you the truth about Obama.
One blog proprietor will not cave. Despite threats.
Kudos to Harvey Weinstein.
I can only imagine the hell that plutarchy operatives are
making his life, for standing up and being an American.
May 12, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Pinochet would be proud of those who don't want to count their votes at all.
May 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accept the results of the original votes, give Clinton the delegates, and the money Weinstein said he would spend on staging the re-votes should be given to the DCCC...because it doesn't matter either way, Obama will still end up being the nominee when the smoke clears.
Thanks for coming out...everybody drive home safely, this primary show is over.
May 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon. Not our fault you didn't go back once more to squeek a few extra dollars out of shine from Weinstein. Anyway, glossing yourself in your own piece and then calling Weinstein shameless is pot calling kettle black.
May 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you have a personal grudge.
May 9, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
JT is right. Today the Clinton's deserve the insults. I was happy to sit back and quietly watch Hilliary self destruct but her latest -- 'I am the champion of the working, hard working American white' -- is over the top. She has only one message today -- vote white! vote for me!. She is spreading this filth in Kentucky and West Virginia. She must be stopped. She is trying to ruin the democratic party.
May 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh get over yourself. She is not trying to do anything of the sort.
May 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then what exactly is she doing, Louisville? I has to say it has me pretty confused so if you could explain, it would be great.
May 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anna, friday afternoon. If I can find the time this weekend I will shout back. Until then..lets go have a couple Beers, bourbon chasers.
May 9, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than unseemly, Weinstein comes off like a cross between Lou Dobbs and Barbara Streisand. He's a producer of course. Just loves control.
May 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama comes off like Al Capone.
He is operating the most corrupt campaign I've seen
in my lifetime.
May 12, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the third time Clinton moneybaggers have threatened to cut off the Dem party infrastructure if their dictats aren't followed.
BTW, Harvey Weinstein is famous for his bad temper and bullying ways so those who are picking nits over this aspect of Taplin's post are carping up the wrong tree.
May 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
JT demeans TPMCafe with these ridiculous posts. This used to be, and still is in many threads, a thought provoking, intellectually honest, platform for insightful and informed opinion. JT is obviously none of those things and it would be wise if TPM dropped him from this blog.
May 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who doesn't approve of Taplin is free to ignore him.
MJ Rosenberg is also the target of those who don't approve of his style and subjected to calls for him to be dropped from the TPMCafe roster.
Some commenters who were offended by MJ's posts did the honorable thing by publically annoucing they could and would no longer participate on them.
I suggest you follow their lead rather than call for censorship.
May 9, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, MJ doesn't go around insinuating that his political opponents are engaging in financial improprieties on no evidence like Taplin does.
I'd hate never call for anybody to be dropped from the site, just wish Taplin was more thoughtful and less willing to resort to cheap namecalling.
May 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is a fact. Bill Clinton has been given 110 million dollars in "honoraria" the past few years not to mention donations to the Clinton foundation.
That is much money. It not insinuating financial impropriety to question these payments or to smell a rat lurking in the wings. What were these people and/or corporations expecting in return? Why isn't the donor list to the Clinton library open to inspection? What about that visit to Khazahkstan and the Uranium concession? They weren't known as the Arkansas Grifters for nothing.
May 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate arguing with you syvanen since we seem to agree on so much. But the Clinton Foundation is pretty much a force for good, isn't it? And why shouldn't Bill command a high speaking fee? Giving speeches is honest work. Managing investments with Ron Burkle is honest work. And the stuff about Kazakhstan -- I don't see what's illegal or immoral about working as a "fixer" on overseas contracts. People do that all of the time.
May 9, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but there is some question if it is smart to place a "political fixer" for a foreign regime in a position to influence the most powerful office in America.
Rizko bought property next to Obama and everyone went mental - taking millions from a foreign government shouldn't even be questioned?
The real question is: Why not disclose the financial information(other than the race is over and there is no longer any point)? Usually if you are running for an office that calls for full disclosure and you refuse to disclose something it is a possible sign that improper may have occurred.
May 11, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. I'll avoid Taplan moving forward. That said, I disagree with the idea that removing a commentator from the blog is censorship. Deleting posts due to content would be censorship. Choosing who you have as a commentator is editorial discretion. For example, if The Times let Bill Crystal go because of regular shoddy work, I would not consider that censorship. It would simply be a case of protecting the Times franchise by exercising editorial judgment. Likewise, if Taplan's contirbutions are shoddy, as I believe they are, it would make sense for TPM to move him out in order to maintain the quality of the blog and discourse.
I did five years in media before moving to banking. Censorship is a serious thing and should always be avoided. Making editorial judgment, however, is the hallmark of good media and should never be avoided or impugned with the charge of censorship.
May 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
JT provides a little sizzle in his commentary, he gives this site some life, especially on some days when the long winded policy analysts, not known for their creative writing styles, get on a roll.
I have a better suggestion. You should take Lally's advice or, if not that, encourage the SA to scrub connorflynn.
May 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a shock! The Weinsteins don't look like bullies. And they are with Hillary. Unbelievable.
May 9, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, MJ... you know this is kind of a weird post... That Clinton is wrong to continue on isn't the issue (we know that) and that Weinstein is a jerk isn't the issue (we know that too, though he has produced some great films).
The issue here is that Taplin once again implies that the Clintons are guilty of some sort of financial fraud and... they aren't.
I'm an Obama guy now, as you were well before I saw the light. But shouldn't an Obama supporter be above these kind of right wing inspired attacks on the Clintons.
I like Taplin as a writer and a thinker, but I hate wis willingness to libel the Clintons without cause.
May 10, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to sound stupid, but given how very early the Mi and Fl votes were, am I the only one that thinks that Obama would have a better showing now (as in anytime since Feb) than he did then? It seems like his campaign, the press, HC's campaign, everyone, seems to assume that the numbers will be the same and I think that is not true.
Why wouldn't Obama support a re-vote? And where has Weinstein been? Couldn't we have used his threats and money a month or so ago?
May 10, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, he'd do way better now. He doesn't support it because it would be a clusterfuck and take energy and money away from beating McCain.
The very idea of a re-vote is stupid (and has been since the Supreme Court invalidated the MI election laws). It's a shell game that everyone is enjoying for some reason.
I'm betting the rules committee seats half delegations for both states and Obama invites the rest of the delegates to the convention. Neat, clean, and easy: the party saves face by punishing the states, Obama gets credit for unifying the party.
May 11, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we supposed to buy the DVD of Shine? Is that why you linked to Amazon, Jonathan? That alone should get you bounced from TPM.
May 11, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer the long winded analysts. When I want sizzle I read the NY Post.
May 11, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
May 22, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink