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.
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.
Comment by Furious D — May 8, 2008 @ 11:50 am
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.
Comment by Jack Burton — May 8, 2008 @ 11:55 am
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.
Comment by JD — May 8, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
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.
Comment by chgo921 — May 8, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
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.
Comment by real — May 8, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
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.
Comment by reelbusy — May 8, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
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.
Comment by Go, Harvey! — May 8, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
The whole process of staggered primaries is absurd and corrupt to begin with.
Comment by ridiculous — May 8, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
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.
Comment by Mel — May 8, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
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.
Comment by Benj Thall — May 8, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Well said, Nikki.
Comment by No-bama — May 8, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
I would hope Harvey Weinstein would use his “millions” to keep his floundering company afloat instead of bottoming out… once again.
Comment by Fielding Mellish — May 8, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
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.
Comment by Jack Burton — May 8, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
It’s looking like McCain will be our next Prez, so hopefully Harvey can pull it off.
We will never vote Obama.
Comment by Lifelong Democrats switching to Independent — May 8, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
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.
Comment by Obamania — May 8, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
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.
Comment by this is disgusting — May 8, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
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.
Comment by harley — May 8, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
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.
Comment by Guy Fawkes — May 8, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
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.
Comment by mheister — May 8, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
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?
Comment by P. Lee — May 8, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
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.
Comment by Jenius — May 8, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
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.
Comment by Bit of a Problem — May 8, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
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.
Comment by common sense — May 8, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
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.
Comment by Agent Provocateur — May 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
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.
Comment by Whaaaaaaaa — May 8, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
This one’s easy — I learned the answer growing up in the Midwest, playing kickball with the neighborhood kids every night until the street lights came on.
You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
Period.
Comment by Anonymous — May 8, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
A word to Lifelong Democrat (and others)…
Most elections are a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. I know there are Obama supporters who say they will vote McCain or not at all over Clinton, and of course Clinton supporters who will vote McCain or not at all over Obama. If you are truly a Democrat (or even an Independent), you may want to take some time to think twice about this. After you get over your spite for Obama, would you really rather have McCain as President? Really?
There are plenty of Democrats who weren’t happy with the choice of Al Gore 8 years ago, so they voted for Nader or didn’t vote at all. In hindsight, not such a great idea, was it?
Comment by Common Sense — May 8, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
“the Democratic party’s Psycho Ex-Girlfriend”
I like that!
Comment by Anonymous — May 8, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Yes, FL broke the rules. And yes FL did get punished for it. That royally stinks. I live in FL and I voted anyway. So my vote didn’t count. That royally stinks too. But nonetheless, I live in a great country, in a beautiful state and I have the right to vote.
Pelosi has bigger issues on her plate. Namely, moving HR 111 out of the Rules Committee. I’d rather she do that than grant my state a revote.
Comment by Becca — May 8, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
Gee, a fat balding, self loathing producer with money threatening Nancy Pelosi and the election process by financial intimidation. Harvey Weinstein, the George Soros of the West coast, can actually be so arrogant as to think he and the entertainment industry, can manipulate the house speaker of the United States of America! Man you liberal haven’t even mentioned that aspect in this thread, and you wonder why the Democratic Party is so dysfunctional, unorganized and just plain Looney by encouraging this blatant disregard for the Democratic party process. Stand up against desperation, and do the right thing, after all the Democratic Party stands for love, compassion and understanding…Right?
Comment by Ron Battaglia — May 8, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
To Jack Burton:
Do you have a link to a site that quotes Clinton saying that or can you tell me where you saw it? I’m not being confrontational with you nor do I disbelieve you, I just want the story.
Thanks!
Comment by Help — May 8, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
What a double standard. He is the Democrats’ Jeb Bush.
What if the NRA had offered to pay for the Florida recount?
And if Weinstein is truly so concerned with fairness shouldn’t he also be all over the Super Delegates possibly trying to usurp the popular vote? Nothing will be more destructive to the Democratic party or cause more dissension. THAT would even more closely mimic 2000 - People in a higher political seat of power trying to sway the vote despite the wishes of the actual voters. Only this time, it’s even worse - it won’t just be the popular vote, it will be the popular vote AND the delegates’ votes thrown aside for the ridiculous “Super Delegates.”
Comment by Anonymous — May 8, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
Help,
Here you go (2nd paragraph):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
It’s a bummer– I was a John Edwards man and have issues with both Clinton and Obama. But the scorched-earth approach the Clintons have taken in the last six weeks has really turned me off. And co-opting goons like Harvey Weinstein and suddenly pressing the Florida and Michigan issues, which she’d dismissed when she was in the lead, ain’t helping.
Comment by Jack Burton — May 8, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Thanks, Jack Burton. Agree with your commentary. I’m a Republican that’s going Democrat this time around. Even McCain scares me. So I’m being extra cautious about which Democrat I support. It’s tricky.
Comment by help — May 8, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
So Harvey and Hillary are so concerned about everyone’s democratic right to vote? And yet Hilary’s only chance now is to convince the superdelegates to OVERTURN the will of the voters.
So let’s stop talking about people’s rights and start talking tuchas here: Harvey is going to lose — big — and he don’t like to lose.
Ha ha, boo-hoo Harvey. You big baby.
Comment by gimme a break — May 8, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
This is kind of a random post, but I just wanted to compliment Nikki on posting negative comments about herself and her own posts. I feel like the site used to be much more censored and posts were chosen with an agenda. Lately, I feel like the comments are not scissored out to achieve an ulterior motive and allows more discussion. I guess that’s somewhat of a back handed compliment, but nonetheless…
I really don’t know if this is post-worthy.
Comment by Erin — May 8, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
What happened here is that both states broke the rules, but the Florida legislature, which is Republican, moved up the primary date to late January for both parties. This forced a decision to where the Democrats were forced to choose the January date against their will. In contrast, Michigan Democrats freely chose their January primary date.
The decision here would be to seat only the Michigan superdelegates because they should be counted no matter what happens, and because superdelegates can make their decision at anytime. As for Florida, allow for a revote, but it has to be done in a caucus setting on or before July 1st.
For the record, this is disenfranchisement, but it is the Republicans in the state house, senate, and governor that are being disenfranchised.
Comment by Jessy S. — May 8, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
Weinstein sounds so disingenuous. Where was his proposal early in the process. Only when Ms. Clinton is about to lose, his ‘investment’ in her campaign is at risk and will get no returns.
We may be seeing Hillary’s campaign calm now. But hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. The Clintons have their sights set. They are a powerhouse in their own right.
Sen. Obama is a force unto himself and can survive, but he and the democratic party, and all his supporters, will be tested.
Obama’s campaign is now also looking past the nomination to the general election, and more of my critique and comments will go in that direction too.
Comment by ToySoldier — May 9, 2008 @ 2:54 am
Apparently Democrats seem to think it’s okay to change rules (laws, whatever) that are inconvenient. Is it any wonder that this country is going to hell and that kids have absolutely no respect for rules, laws, adults… or anything else? Clearly adults, at least the Democrats in this matter (much like illegals, coincidentally) don’t have any respect for inconvenient rules (or truths), so why should kids?
It *is* just one big coincidence, isn’t it?
Well, isn’t it?
No, wait! Somebody mananged to make this whole farce within the Democratic party the Republicans’ fault! Amazing, but true. You just can’t make this crap up, folks. Nobody would believe it.
Comment by BS Detector — May 9, 2008 @ 3:10 am
Comment by Mel — “if barack gets the nomination, the dems can kiss the presidency buh-bye yet again.”
You might be right, Mel. My question is, why do the Democrats continually do such incredibly stupid stuff that manages to lose elections for them that they should have won easily! I refer, of course, to the 2004 Presidential election. If anybody was ripe for defeat, it was george W. Bush. Yet once again, the Democratas snatched defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory.
Here they go again? Oh well. At least they’ll have yet another excuse to whine about how they got done wrong… again, and again, and again….
Comment by BS Detector — May 9, 2008 @ 3:20 am
Most of these Hollywood types were Dean supporters in 2004. Dean has shown his capacity for executive leadership at the DNC hasn’t he? Good lord he’s awful.
All this money Harvey wants to raise should be donated to the party for THE GENERAL ELECTION.
Democrats don’t lose elections because of imperfect candidates. They lose because of their inability to unite the party around the nominee.
No candidate is perfect.
Hillary is the past, Obama is the future. Get on board or its 4 more years of Republican rule in Washington.
Comment by Brett — May 9, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Earth to BS Detector, Primaries are set up by the state legislators and signed into law by the Governor. In Florida both the state legislative body and Governorship are ruled by the Republicans and they voted for the Democrats to hold their primary in late January in order to disenfranchise them. This is after the Republicans in Florida stole the 2004 election by erasing every other democratic vote in both Florida and Ohio while Florida destroyed the rolls of over 100,000 democrats back in 2000. Meanwhile a caucus is set up by the party, they pay for all the locations, and for everything else regarding the caucus.
As for Michigan, they have nobody to blame but themselves and don’t get a vote outside the superdelegates.
Finally, as for Democrats doing stuff wrong, the only thing is this, Democrats will win in this election unless a third party can provide a better deal. If you are a republican reading this, prepare for a bloodbath in November.
Comment by Jessy S. — May 9, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
At this point, it looks like seating delegates from Florida and Michigan isn’t going to rescue Clinton anyway. Her margin wasn’t huge in Florida. In Michigan, she only barely beat “uncommitted”; a lot of people were either voting for Obama and Edwards or voting against her.
Every time Clinton mentioned “experience”, she made a much stronger case for “I’m not as qualified as McCain” than she ever did for “I’m more qualified than Obama.” Once she made that the centerpiece of her campaign, she deserved to lose the nomination, because it ruined her for the general election.
The proposal is much too late. Weinstein should be raising money for Obama’s general election campaign. If he really wants to do Clinton a favor, he should try to sell her on the idea that she can accomplish more as a Senator-for-life than as a presidential candidate who isn’t going to win the primary, and wouldn’t win the general if the primary were handed to her.
Comment by Steve S — May 10, 2008 @ 5:19 am
Nikki, support Hilary, fair enough, but to support Harve’s attempt to reactivate his Lincoln Bedroom club membership is so outta character… I mean, self-serving states trying to rewrite party law?… c’mon, woman!
Comment by Vancou Jew — May 10, 2008 @ 11:17 pm