Hillary Campaign: We Didn't Know What Was In Donors' Letter To Pelosi
That letter to Nancy Pelosi from 20 Hillary fundraisers contained a veiled threat: Change your public posture on the role of the super-dels or you might see our money stop flowing into DCCC coffers.
The question now is: Did Hillary or any of her campaign officials participate in the writing of the letter or sign off on its content? Did she or the campaign approve a message tacitly threatening to dial back a commitment to building a lasting Democratic majority?
The Hillary campaign -- and one fundraiser who signed the letter -- say that the answer is an emphatic No.
"We got a heads up that it was being sent, and that was it," Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer said on a conference call with reporters moments ago. He also said: "We didn't know what was in it. Our supporters let us know that they were sending something."
Separately, one of the signatories of the letter -- someone I trust -- tells me that the letter was not written in consultation with the campaign. You all will make of this what you will, but that's what the person said.















It doesn't matter whether they helped to write it. Do they agree with it? That's the question I'd like to see them answer.
March 27, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is totally the right question. It is hard to know what they mean by "the letter was not written in consultation with the campaign." This statement could arguably be true, even if the parties had a discussion before any writing took place. I have a hard time believing that there wasn't an agreement about who would sign the letter, to whom it would be sent, and the general import of the letter. I also think that given the senders and recipient, the letter would be an obvious, implicit threat, regardless of the words used in the letter.
March 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over and above the questions about whether the Clinton campaign agrees with the letter or whether it was written in consultation with them, the most important thing about it is it highlights what sort of people would be involved in a Clinton administration. They appear to be people who are very accustomed to using their wealth to make sure they get their own way and who apparently don't hesitate to make thinly-veiled threats when there's a risk that they won't.
Therefore, the most relevant question becomes: Are these the sort of people we want influencing our next administration?
For not the first time now, Clinton's efforts to convince us why she should get the nomination only bring into ever sharper focus all the reasons why so many of us don't want her to do so.
March 27, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We got a heads up that it was being sent, and that was it," Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer said on a conference call with reporters moments ago. He also said: "We didn't know wh
O I'm sure your largest donors wanted to make it all a nice surprise, Hillary. They decorated the rec room, got you a cake, and they were going to present you the nomination they had extorted out of the Democratic party all wrapped up in a shiny bow.
And I am Marie, the Queen of Romania.
March 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same person who leaked the letter to you, Greg?
March 27, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not have sexual relations with those superdelegates!
March 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
bvd - boy, are you obsessed with that meme !!
Love it.
March 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so much concerned with what they knew beforehand, but rather what they make of Pelosi's response.
March 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We got a heads up that it was being sent, and that was it," "
Right. We believe ya, Phil. We are all like Greg here.
Greg, no need to be defensive. We believe ya too.
March 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Separately, one of the signatories of the letter -- someone I trust --"
This speakes volumes about your reporting of this election.
March 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bother. Not that Mr Sargent needs me to defend him, but really, what is the problem here? I, for one, think that Mr Sargent's ability to get these signatories on the phone and ask them these sorts of questions is a plus, not a minus. I do not know the person in question, so I can neither credit nor discredit Mr Sargent's willingness to trust the fellow, but Mr Sargent is not asking me to trust the signatory's word. Mr Sargent is simply reporting what the person said.
March 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many signatories on the letter were at that big meeting with all her donors a week or so back?
March 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
But they knew it was coming, and didn't ask what was in it? Does that pass the giggle test?
March 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to believe that Clinton's campaign isn't so stupid they would think the letter was a good idea. They're stupid, just not that stupid.
March 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, that's the kind of experience and judgement we're looking for...
"We got a heads up that it was being sent, and that was it," Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer said on a conference call with reporters moments ago. He also said: "We didn't know what was in it. Our supporters let us know that they were sending something."
Wasn't the Hillary team the least bit curious what was being sent out? Where is her leadership?
"Okay, guys, send it out, whatever the heck it is. Whatever statement you're making, I don't care, just send it out! No. I don't want to read it."
She got the heads up and ducked. Yes, folks, she's ready to lead on Day One. hmmm... maybe she got the message at 3:00 am, but was too sleep deprived to make a sound judgement.
March 27, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one.
March 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they thought it was a Pick-Me-Up bouquet...
March 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They may not have known that it was being written but they didn't have a problem with it after it was released to the media. The Obama campaign called on them to condemn the letter but they didn't do it. Instead they claimed that few had done more to build the party than they had. That only seems to me to back up the threat contained in the letter. I guess they just mispoke again or said it under the threat of sniper fire.
March 27, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for more Clinton campaign speak.
I can always count on TPM for being the most up to date Clinton surrogates.
March 27, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're out in left field with your constant nagging about biased coverage. Stick around for awhile, and the Clinton supporters will be all over TPM for its bias...It's amusing, reading the cries of bias--particularly when both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters claim the very same piece is biased.
March 27, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi claims to be neutral when everyone knows she is for Obama. She claims to have to maintain neutrality because she is co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention. But she has repeatedly made statements betraying that neutrality, including saying a unity ticket is impossible and that the super delegates should overturn the popular vote in favor of the pledged delegate count. She argued against revotes in Florida and Michigan. She should be impeached.
March 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call b.s. I want you to cite me a statement by Speaker Pelosi wherein she claims that the supers should "overturn the popular vote in favor of the pledged delegate count." I think that you are making this up.
March 27, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dembillc, answer his question. Where did Pelosi ever say supers should overturn the popular vote? Source please ... otherwise you are completely full of it.
March 27, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Pelosi's for Obama. She is "exercising her independent judgment" to do what's best for the Democratic Party (unlike a certain presidential candidate I could mention).
March 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I thought Hillary said that Supers should vote their conscience?
Now that she leans towards Obama she should be impeached?
Richardson endorses Obama and he's called a Judas?
I'm just hoping the fine citizens of New York remember her behavior when it's time to elect a NEW Senator.
Impeached you say.. More Hillaryiousness...
March 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a source of endless fascination to me how you guys constantly talk about the infinitesimally small possibility of a split between the popular vote and the pledged delegate counts as if it were an existing fact.
See, first, it isn't. Obama is ahead of her in the popular vote, even excluding caucus participants (which I know you guys say don't count because *snort* caucuses aren't democratic.)
As to the future, well I've got some bad news for you there, too. Follow along with me here, guys.
Splits between the number of delegates and number of votes are a rare occurrance that can happen in a winner-take-all system, such our general elections, when Candidate A wins large states by a large margin and Candidate B wins many states by a narrow margin (helped along by the fact that the way electoral votes are distributed is not proportional to population because each state gets at least three electors regardless of population.)
We Democrats, however, do not have winner-take-all primaries. Its those other guys who do their primaries that way. Instead, we Democrats have proportional representation. Can you say that? Pro-por-shun-al. Mmm hm, I knew you could.
This means that the number of delegates won more closely matches the candidate's percentage of votes in each Congressional district. This, in turn, makes the possibility that one candidate could have the most votes while the other has the most delegates very, very, very unlikely. Which is why it has not happened so far and is very, very, very, very unlikely to happen in the future.
March 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought that the word "no" stands pretty well on its own. I've never understood the need for an "emphatic" no or a "catagorical" no.
March 27, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem believing that the campaign didn't see the letter before it was sent. They would have known that the letter was a form of support, so what's the big deal about whether they knew the actual contents?
What matters isn't what the campaign knew, but how the campaign is going to respond to Pelosi's figurative "STFU" to the fundraisers.
March 27, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So these people just told the Clinton campaign they were sending "something" to Nancy Pelosi, but didn't tell them what? A letter from big money people to Pelosi and the campaign didn't think to ask what was in it?
Obviously the Clintons didn't tell them not to send it, so there's definitely some culpability here.
March 27, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Greg, let's take your source at his or her word, but I still see this letter as representative of the jaundiced, party big-wig view that got our asses kicked all through the 90's. Ignoring Ferraro's other remarks, one thing I found particularly revealing was when she said Barack shouldn't anger her because he would need her to raise money. Really?
Obviously one can't go too far down the path of guilt by association, but I think it's noteworthy that many of Hiallary's high profile supporters within the party have attitudes and ideas that seem highly retrograde and even reactionary. And I'm just sick of that.
March 27, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Day. Another Lie.
And, No, I am not misspeaking.
March 27, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next letter Pelosi gets will include a photo of a money bag, with a copy of today's NY Times pinned to it.
Now that they've made contact, they need to prove they're serious.
March 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sort of proof of life will Pelosi demand?
March 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is some sort of small donation, just to prove they're acting in good faith. Pelosi needs to be careful though, because if she's not, she's going to get a piece of Dr. Franklin's head in the mail tomorrow.
I wonder if we can bring in Sinbad to act as a negotiator. Although, after hearing about the way he operated under fire in Bosnia, we might need to keep him in our back pocket for now. This thing could go south in a hurry.
March 27, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We got a heads up that it was being sent, and that was it"
Hmmmm.....I guess it depends on what "it" is.
Does this pass the credibility test?
Donors: "We're sending a letter to the party leadership."
Clinton campaign: "Oh? Okay. Good luck."
March 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but they evidently didn't disagree with the content, did they? I've seen no hint of that anywhere.
March 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here endeth the Lesson.
March 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: Your avitar should be a picture of you holding hands with HRC. Same stuff from you everyday.
March 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
American should be outraged at Hillary for attempting to pull a George W. Bush move in trying to steal the nomination.
"We Didn't Know What Was In Donors"
When does the lying stop, Hillary?
March 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're out in left field with your constant nagging about biased coverage. Stick around for awhile, and the Clinton supporters will be all over TPM for its bias...It's amusing, reading the cries of bias--particularly when both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters claim the very same piece is biased.
Word straight up!
It's almost too funny - I am glad this post is up here - I think it's grand knowing what lies the Clinton campaign team has come up with now.
March 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't really matter at all whether they wrote it or not. They evidently do not disagree with the content or the insinuation, or else they would have quickly jumped on it just as the Obama campaign did. Even here, they did not say they disagreed with the sentiment.
And who really believes that they didn't even ask what it might contain? They seriously heard about it and just covered their ears and eyes?
March 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this took real courage for the Clinton camp. After the last 8 years, hell, after the last 16 years, the feeling in this country is that we need change.
By denying knowledge the Clinton campaign is announcing that Hillary's Presidency will be just like the Bush and Bill years: A presidency based on plausible deniability.
Hillay Clinton '08, if you hated Bush just wait until you see the shit we pull!
March 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
Note:TPM, please fix your login issues. They make posting reliably more trouble than it's really worth. Anyway, I'll post again, and it'll get double posted, but whatever.
They bought her. They own her.
Why should they care if Hillary knew what was in their letter on her behalf?
March 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Pelosi doesn't have a cat.
March 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they're saying no - that letter did even more damage to their cause among Super Delegates who didn't take kindly to being threatened.
March 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton's campaign didn't know anything about the letter, then why did they respond to Obama's call for them to repudiate the letter?
March 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The same point I made in the earlier post on this topic. I said "Barack is smart to call her out on this".
March 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I believe the Hillary camp's story. Allowing such a letter to go out without vetting it is perfectly consistent with the most incompetent, bumbling political campaign of my lifetime. Never forget that a large chunk of the party has been waiting for years for Hillary to run and she had possibly the highest name recognition of all time as well as testimonials from accross the political spectrum for the past several years. Then she hired a bunch of hacks who spent more time squabbling about what jobs they'd get in the administration than on actually planning and competently running a campaign. She's losing to a first term senator who has almost no policy differences with her. So yeah, letting the letter go out without inquiring or checking makes perfect sense in context. I spent the last 3 years trying to convince my democratic friends that she was electable. I was wrong.
March 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some interesting background on this signatories can be found here, at dKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/27/912/91904/66/485037
March 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly the question to ask them. What is their opinion of that letter.
We all know that while under sniper fire one can't stop long enough to ask what a letter by prominent donnors says; only long enough to hear that it is being sent.
March 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should all forgive the Clinton campaign for any possible involvement in the Pelosi letter. My guess is that she was under sniper fire and can't remember that it wasn't real but that she made it up.
March 27, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the problem with 20 DCCC supporters voicing their opinions to Nancy Pelosi? Why should the DCCC feel entitled to their money? If the DCCC is no longer operating in a way they feel serves their interests, why shouldn't they say as much? I don't get the controversy over this except it's just one more way to twist something to imply the worst possible things about the Clinton campaign but you guys hardly needed that. You could twist any headline in the news to be an example of Clinton's evilness. Greg Sargent - keep up the great work!
March 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You could twist any headline in the news to be an example of Clinton's evilness"
Yes, we can. Thanks for the compliment. We are clairvoyant that way with all matters concerning Hillary.
March 27, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you even read the articles you comment on? The entire point of the letter is that they have no issue with how the DCCC is operating. Rather they are using their support of the DCCC to try and influence the words and actions of the Speaker with respect to the presdiential primaries. The problem is these "Democrats" are willing to undermine Democratic control of Congress in order to benefit Clinton.
Do you not see the problem with moneyed supporters using their influence in this way?
March 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can TRY to use their influence any way they want. It's up to Pelosi to stand up to it. If their money is THAT important to the party then the party is in trouble. I can't believe anyone is suggesting that people who feel strongly about something shouldn't write their Congress people to express their opinion because they've actually donated money to that party.
March 27, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? No idea why this might rub people the wrong way? Obviously if they're donating money they get something in return. The question seems to be how much say do they get? I'd rather see a party that raises most of its money through individual donors, running on the theory that this makes the party more accountable to the will of its constituents. Just cause somebody's got few hundred million in the bank doesn't mean I want them running my party. My interests and their's probably aren't very closely aligned. I can only assume you feel differently.
March 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of rabid Clinton supporters, where's Mister Softee?
March 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting his Viagra prescription refilled!!!
March 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's busy setting aflame copies of the U.S. Constitution with his buddies from the Project for a New American Century.
March 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it before and will say it again - I do not understand her reasoning in picking her campaign people. All they do is lose - I was gobsmacked when I found out.
But I still don't believe a campaign would let a letter go out to the Speaker of the House without vetting it.
I thought the Clinton campaign was all about the vetting; the wonkiness, etc. It doesn't follow.
March 27, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it sure doesn't. All that vaunted experience that she has been touting doesn't seem to have enhanced her management acumen. They were rolling in money, leading in the polls, everything was coming up roses, and then the actual voting started, and it's been downhill since then.
Now, Clinton is scrambling for her political life, and for why?
And btw, did you see this comment:
Same post. And amazingly enough, it's biased against bothClinton and Obama. Too funny.
March 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because Greg is demonstrating is patently obvious pro-Sinbad bias once again! (Er, not that there's anything wrong with that.)
March 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How one campaigns is a good indication of how one would govern."
"extort"
verb
1. obtain through intimidation
2. obtain by coercion or intimidation; "They extorted money from the executive by threatening to reveal his past to the company boss"; "They squeezed money from the owner of the business by threatening him"
3. get or cause to become in a difficult or laborious manner
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
March 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unrelated, but:
"Sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House and it’s an economic crisis. And we need a president who is ready and willing to answer that call."
What the hell does that even mean?
March 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that if Obama is elected he'll refuse to answer the phone.
March 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. I mean, he can give a great speech, but can he pick up the phone? Hillary is running on 35 years of phone picking up.
March 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means Bill needs bail money.
March 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't make fun of us phone-a-phobes. It takes great courage to pick, let alone answer, a phone that rings at 3am. Maybe I could handle 1am, but 3am... no way.
Btw, few people realize that Hillary's ring tone is a sniper fire. Do you all not understand? SNIPER FIRE!!!
Guess who is looking silly now?
March 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Greg's source is parsing the meaning of the word "campaign" a bit more closely than usual?
If the campaign wasn't involved, how were these 10 people organized to get together and write the letter? They sound like pretty busy folks; I don't think they all ran into each other and the neighborhood Starbucks one afternoon and decided to draft a letter to Ms. Pelosi.
March 27, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Modest Question:
Then who was it that organized Hillary's Money Goons for the Assault Mission?. Was there a blank sheet of paper lying around that they were all magically drawn to, and sign!
March 27, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Pelosi doesn't have a cat.
Or a bunnyrabbit.
March 27, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Info on the Hillary Donors here at TPM:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/top-hillary-donors-who-are-the.php
Follow the money.....
March 27, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone want to take odds on when we get the breathless title on the front page about the Gallup Tracking poll?
March 27, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House and it’s an economic crisis. And we need a president who is ready and willing to answer that call."
Bill doesn't have cab fare home?
(Ok, it was cheap and easy and I'm a bad girl.)
March 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And:
Amazing sleight of hand, Greg.
For everyone crying "BIAS", do you see how silly this has become?
March 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assumed that the campaign hadn't written the letter, for this reason: The letter makes the arguments that Pelosi is wrong to say that superdelegates should follow the pledged delegate totals, because:
1. Not everyone has voted yet, so it overturns the will of the voters, and,
2. After the voting is over, the superdelegates should be free to vote their judgment and overturn the will of the voters.
Both these talking points are promulgated by the Clinton campaign, but they're usually smart enough not to put them in one letter where the contradiction is obvious. QED. ;-)
March 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then, they have Howard and Mark at loggerheads each with opposing views on campaign issues. Since Hillary is risk-averse, they safely decided to put both their talking points in.
March 27, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really worth reading Angry Vets link above on who some of these people are.
I am guessing everything they say is technically true. I can believe the donors wrote it on their own--after all they're expecting to be ambassadors and have influence (and maybe pardons) and all of that is being washed away by these COMMONERS. So, the campaign didn't "consult" with them on the actual writing. I would guess someone called and said, "Hey, we're going to write that commie skank Pelosi and tell her weren't not going to give to the DCCC anymore if she keeps this up." But they don't know the exact contents, like, word for word.
March 27, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We got a heads up but didn't read it."
Hillary was given a heads up about the N.I.E., but didn't read that either.
March 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it difficult to believe that Clinton has a big meeting with her big donors, as we read about here on TPM, and a week later a letter is sent out by the big donors, yet the Clinton campaign is not involved.
March 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Greg's report indicate that Hillary's camp didn't know what the letter to Pelosi stated, but the Huffington Post's story implies that that they knew the context, if not the actual verbage???
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/clinton-campaign-stands-b_n_93749.html
March 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Might have something to do with his confidant who supposedly didn't know what was in the letter...
March 27, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any contradiction between the two stories. They both say that they didn't know what was in the letter, and they didn't instigate it, but they knew it was happening. Of course, all the denials are artfully worded enough to leave open the possibility that at the big donors' meeting, they could have said "the Pelosi statement isn't good for us; we wouldn't mind if someone could do something about that..."
March 27, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think greg or tpm mean to be biased, they're just compromised by trusting relationships.
They said it. I trust them. Why look deeper?
March 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
okay, this is funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
March 27, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am guessing everything they say is technically true.
They said the letter was not written - written - with the campaign's input or help. That's what Greg's "source" told him. They have never said they didn't know what was in it - I don't think. Not really. They've cut it very closely, but I am maintaining my position - they knew.
March 27, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is an extraordinarily good question.
March 27, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Singer: Hello, this is Phil...yeah, hi, nice to hear from you, I was just thinking about calling...you know we're in a tough fight, but she's a fighter, and these fights get expensi...oh, what? What's that? You're sending a letter? To...to Pelosi? Um, ok. Uh, yeah, no that's uh...that's great.
Can you tell me what it's about? What? I don't want to...well, actually, I think I do want to know, because I wouldn't want...what's that? Ok, so really? I really don't want to know? Ok, I guess. Um, thanks for the heads-up I guess...anything else I can do for you? No? Ok, well, we sure appreciate your support, and speaking of support, we sure could use...hello? Dang.
Yeah, sounds about right.
March 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people are just too cynical. If the Clinton camp says that they did not know what the letter said, then, based on their past record, I believe them.
Have you all turned into habitual skeptics. Next thing you will actually be accusing Senator Rambo Clinton of not having caught sniper bullets between her teeth at Tuzla Airport in Bosnia.
March 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
On another topic that I feel got buried:
Did the Mainstream Media report on the Clinton's ties to Rev. Wright and show the photo of President Clinton and him? As well as the Clinton's DC church put out a statement in support of Wright.
To me this is perhaps bigger news in terms of how hypocritical the Clinton's are and how this deflates the Wright debacle for Obama.
Did anyone see this being covered? All I saw on MSM was the "poll" on the 28% etc. I think a photo and a statement are bigger than a poll. A poll isn't exactly a proven fact.
March 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who require videotaped evidence or signed confessions before they are prepared to pass judgement on politicians are hayseeds straight off a turnip truck.
Of course Clinton knew of this threat to Pelosi. She chose to take yet another another page from the Rove/Cheney/Bush playbook: "Watch what you think, and say, and do, because we're watching, and taking names".
When Richardson spoke of her "sense of entitlement" he hit the nail on the head. And don't give me any jazz about him having only referred to people in her campaign. That was pro forma political jive, and everyone knows it.
Tell me this, too. If the signatories are so big and bad, so formidable that the party will catch cold should they sneeze, why are Clinton's finances in such bad shape? Where did Obama get all the cash he has raised?
Those people are the DLCers. The same political wretches that have aided and abetted the GOP every step of the way during its march to the far right over the past 28 years. They ran the democratic party onto a reef, and today have the gall to insist their orders still be obeyed- or else. Screw 'em. Let 'em walk. It will be a stronger party if they do.
March 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit.
March 27, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question...
CNN, "Cafterty File"March 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she didn't know, then why not? Who is running her campaign? Do they not think that something like that warrants her attention?
She's either an idiot? Or the people around her, don't think her opinion is worth a damn.
March 27, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink