In Letter, Top Clinton Donors Chastise Pelosi For Statements About Super-Delegates
Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chastising her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count and demanding that she say that they should make an "independent" choice.
I've obtained a copy of the letter, which comes from some of the most influential fundraisers in the Democratic Party, including Hassan Nemazee, Steven Rattner, Maureen White, Stan Shuman, and Alan Patricof.
Here's a key excerpt:
Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.
During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier...
The letter also contains an explicit reference to the fact that these donors have contributed heavily to Democratic causes, and demands that Pelosi clarify that the role of the super-dels is to make an "independent" choice between the candidates:
We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
The letter represents a significant ratcheting up of pressure from Hillary's big money people on a Democratic leader in a position to influence how the super-delegates make up their minds at the end of the primary.
Full letter after the jump.
The Honorable Nancy PelosiSpeaker of the US House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.
We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.
During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:
"I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”
Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.
We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
Sincerely,
Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner
Shorter Top Clinton Voters:
We need to let the democratic process play out so that the superdelegates can overrule it.
March 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Short version : Blackmail by these blackguards.
March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe or not, when someone called from the DCCC to ask for my donation, I said basically the same thing. I'm closing my wallet to DCCC as long as Pelosi is showing such blatant bias against Hillary's campaign. It is unnecessary for her to say such stupid things, including her comments about no dream ticket. This women should keep her mouth shut and let the people decide.
March 26, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean only people in states that Clinton wins should decide.
March 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean she should shut up and let Clinton get the nomination? that's what you mean, right? right?
March 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by "People" you mean "Super delegates", right?
March 26, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by "super Delegates" you mean only the ones that support Clinton, right? Not the ones whose "independent" judgment would lead to support Obama, right?
March 26, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aimey May,
I wrote to the DNC three months ago and told them that I would never vote for Hillary under any circumstance. Now you think about the nearly 2 million people contributing to Barack Obama's campaign and the 20 some maxed out supporters of Hillary on that list? (Clarence Avant, shame on you!) Who do you think the party is going to listen to?
I find the people on the list not unlike Bush's campaign supporters. Accepting of any behavior as long as it leads to a win. This is a new day...and those guys are outta step with the times.
March 26, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaker Pelosi said HILLARY ruled out the chance of a dream ticket when she said McCain was more qualified than Obama to be president. Check the whole context of a story before your rip faces off.
Hillary is opening herself up to the kind of support she is receiving from the party's leadership. The Speaker has the best interest of the party at stake because the Democrats, as a whole, must win the WH in November. Hillary will hand over the WH to the Republicans before she'll let another Democrat have it over her because this is her life: Hillary believes that she and President Clinton own it and Barack is just a johnny-come-lately who is way out of line. I'm for a Democratic president and I support Speaker Pelosi--Hillary's behavior, conduct and remarks are out of line and she needs to get out.
March 27, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic party no longer needs be indebted to the DLC fatcats. We are becoming once again the party of the people. The way true progressives have supported Obama they will support Pelosi. Hillary talks a good game but she is not now nor has she ever been a progressive. She served on board of directors of Wal-Mart for six years, while her husband was governor of state where Wal_mart is headquartered. She sat in on mettings where union busting tactics were discussed. She and her husband continue to profit from Wal-Mart connections. Her husband's foundation received a $500,000 donation from them just this year. By the way, Mark Penn, her chief strategist, represents Countrywide along with his union busting activities. And as we know through james carville, we know how the Clinton's are about loyalty.
March 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
...meant to say "shorter top Clinton *donors*"
March 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's large donors, for a number of reasons, can go screw themselves. I want to see a list of who these assholes are, so I can boycott them and do everything possible to punish them for attempting to buy our democracy.
We're moving towards greater public financing and grass roots activism, and against special interests, every day. The harder they lean on the scales, the more public push-back they'll generate.
People will turn out for David against Goliath every time.
March 26, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Building on StlMoDem's point - could someone please ask the HRC campaign this:
The campaign says that if superdels make a decide a winner now, this would subvert the election process because their votes should be counted and therefore their pledged delegates chosen. BUT, if, regardless of the lead in popular vote or pledged dels come June, it would be fine thine for superdels to choose the winner. What's the difference? What is the logic behind ignoring votes later being somehow better than ignoring votes now? If superdels do not have to support whomever leads in pledged dels, then why does the campaign argue that it is wrong for them to make that independent choice now?
March 26, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy should not worry about the clout of donors who have already maxed out on their legally allowed donations.
March 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter version:
Dear Madame Speaker,
Believe and say what we tell you to believe and say or else.
Sincerly,
Money
March 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so damn funny ;-)
March 26, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Nancy, between a rock and a hard place....
I wonder if she realizes what's at stake here. Clinton has all the swing vote one could hope for in an election, she has the hispanics, moderate women, blue collar workers. And my impression is that these voters want to vote FOR Clinton. Not for Obama. And in the last two elections, I don't think they had a Democratic candidate they liked
Or maybe she just doesn't care.
March 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am assuming you are still talking about the primary - because their final vote is not determined for the GE yet...
This conflation will not stand!
March 26, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet Obama continues to out-fundraise her by a substantial amount.
Oh, and he's getting more votes.
And delegates.
And more states.
So really, Nancy is caught between Barack and a lost cause.
March 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
how punny - but I do agree... who the hell are they to overtly attempt buyibg the party.
Just like the morons from Florida that pulled the same threat on Howard Dean
March 27, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever you think of Obama or Clinton as candidates, how do you feel about big donors trying to run the party? That really seems to be what's at stake.
Now obviously Clinton needs the big donors more than Obama does, but all things being equal, wouldn't you like to see a Democratic Party that is more responsive to individual voters as opposed to rich people? You know one person, one vote?
March 26, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...and we are forgetting the 50% disapproval rating she has? And are we pretending that the republican's won't bring her scandals back? Or bust her for padding her resume? Or flip-flopping on iraq? Or her husband getting his dome polished? Or bring up Hillary-care again? Or talk about Billy in the WH?
Why do you think registered republicans are voting for HER in the democratic primary? Is it maybe because they feel they would rather run against her in the fall?
March 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
You have made some pretty wild statements on here in the past, but your suggestions that Clinton has all of the swing votes needed for the general and Obama doesn't is completely unfounded. I don't think that either have shown that they have a lock on all of the voter types which is why we are where we are with a vote that is so close.
I'm not saying that Obama has the GE locked up but there is certainly nothing that would suggest that Clinton has any real advantage in this area.
March 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What swing vote? Do you people seriously have ANY concept of general election electability whatsoever? Seriously...are you for real? It isn't about what happens in the primary, the election is against MCCAIN, and it will be a battle over INDEPENDENTS, a group that Hillary pushes away, and a group that flocks to Obama.
Seriously, do you really not understand this, or are you borrowing a tactic from Hillary and simply trying to deceive people who may not know any better?
March 26, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
wherever Bill Richardson goes, the Hispanics will follow.
Are you saying Hispanics rather elect a Hillary Clinton as president than by-pass chance to have the first Hispanic vice president?
March 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought Richardson would make an excellent VP. Good counsel, good experience, pretty reliable, brings in voters. I'd be happy with that choice, though it's too early to speculate.
But yeah, your point remains that if Obama needs to Hispanic vote, Richardson is a phone call away.
Regardless, the notion that Hispanics will go for McCain over Obama is utterly delusional. comical even. Wishful thinking from Hillary supporters.
McCain very badly needs to turn out the white, rural, Evangelical, and rabidly anti-immigrant base. To do so, he must pander to people like Hagee during the campaign. Hagee (and countless others like him in the Republican base) hates immigrants and Catholics. And they're accustomed to public support from Republicans and will accept no less. And Republican enthuiasm is already down so McCain needs some red meat speeches.
Big problem.
March 26, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahaha, okay, so this is what the letter says:
"Millions of voters have yet to have their voices heard, so don't dare say that we will have to abide by their voices once they vote, because we'll cut off funding if you do"
Yes, they are using voters as an excuse to disenfranchise voters. Which is much in keeping with their overall strategy of hijacking the vote, while pretending to care about the voters. If you'd like to read my more extensive comments on their hypocrisy, you can here:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/hillarys-only-path-to-nomination.html
March 26, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. These donors own "logic" is bullshit.
'Millions of voters have not been heard, so stop saying the superdelegates should respect the will of what all those voters have to say.'
It is nonsense paper wrapping around a blackmail attempt to get Clinton the nomination.
March 26, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The extended comments on Lux Veritas' blog are an outstanding analysis. How can the press let her say she is so concerned about voters AND let her say that delegates can rightfully ignore voters? I'm concerned not just that it's doublespeak, but that she's not being called on it.
March 26, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your kind words. And seriously, isn't it insane that she is able to say one thing and then say another in the same breath and NEVER be called on it?? It is astonishing what she gets away with. Her hypocrisy is the most consistent theme in this entire election.
March 26, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here is a chance to see if the Dem and the GOP parties are really different after all.
A few, large donors are pressuring the present ranking Dem in the country. A few.
This is clearly the type of party that Hillary Clinton enjoys. Powerful backers in her pocket.
What does this mean to the average American? It means that Hillary Clinton's Dem Party really doesn't include you. You don't contribute enough to matter. Your collective voice doesn't matter for influencing policy (except as means to gobble votes).
This tactic is no different that the usual cabal of major donors talking to the GOP. None at all.
The only question I have is whether Hillary represents the Dem Party of the past or the future.
How Pelosi handles this is a large clue.
March 26, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody want to take bets on whether this letter would have been written if the situation were reversed and Hillary led in the Delegate count (instead of nothing)?
Place your bets here!
March 26, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
six hundred rupees.
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a word for this. It's called extortion.
And isn't this what one would expect of the big-dollar donor Clinton machine. When you can't win an election with popular votes, or pledged delegates, just defy democratic principles and threaten to walk with your money.
This is why a change candidate is so necessary--to get us out of this paradigm in which those with the gold make the rules.
March 26, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Sharpton threatening to protest ( riot) the convention, if Obam does'nt get the nomination? The word for that is terrorism. Pleeeez. HRC's "Typical" donors have every right to call out Pelosi who has been irresponsible in her comments. I for one am tired of the GOP running this show with the MSM bias coverage. Obama is obstructionist with respect to re-votes and his argument contradictory. Love the good Rev. Wright covertly campaigning on vacation recently. But, guess that's just a typical
opinion from a typical lunch bucket dem. who is not impressed with The golden one.
March 27, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must suck to be a big donor to a political party, expecting to curry a bunch of favors and whatnot, only to have this newfangled invention called "the interwebs" come along and make you completely insignificant.
Hey Pelosi - one million individual donors. $100 each. And we're just getting started.
Balls back in your court, Bob Johnson. Can I get a wha-wha?
March 26, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. exxxxcellent.
March 26, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear big donors, F*** you. You don't own the party anymore- we're taking it back. Go away, far away, and take your stinking money with you.
Sincerely, the millions of small donors to the Obama campaign.
March 26, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
March 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting a little tired of HRC's argument that she's staying in for the selfless reason of honoring the desire of people in the remaining states to vote. Since when has there been a vested right to vote in a national primary? Yes, if a vote is held, you have a right to vote, but what is the source of this notion that everyone, everywhere must have an opportunity to vote on the nominee? If that's going to be the new standard, I guess primary season is going to last a full year from here on out. Good news for the media, bad news for all the rest of us.
March 26, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi opposed impeachment: she likes Obama's inclusiveness of Republicans just fine. I wonder if she was relying on his advice?
March 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I would love to impeach Bush, your argument is pointless.
Impeachment would be impossible and a waste of time. Look at the investigations thus far: Nothing is wrong here folks, please move along.
March 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM is a longtime troll. Just saying, fyi.
March 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps if we had let the Repugs impeach Bill, she could have taken notes?
March 26, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you won't let our friend Hillary win, we'll stomp our feet, take our money, and leave... Waaaaaaaa. -Clinton Donors
Could we kill two birds with one stone this year? Could we get rid of both the Clintons and the scum that follows them around with money to gain influence and power? I sure hope so. If only they had left address, we could tell them where they could stick their money.
March 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice avatar :)
March 26, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just another sad indication that Hillary's campaign is owned by a relatively few wealthy donors and special interests, while Obama's campaign is owned by millions of the grassroots populace.
March 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So this is blatant extortion from Clinton donors to the Democratic Party.
March 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same thing that happened with the Florida Big Monies - some of them even asked for their money back.
March 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extortion? Really? To insist that the Speaker of The House abide by the Superdelegate rules and let them decide based on the rules.
The rules do not say that the SD'S should vote the way their constituents voted. If this were the case, Richardson needs to resent his endorsement. This is what Pelosi is stating and for her to rewrite or misstate the rules is irresponsible.
What is more disturbing is the Uncle Tom smears being received from Obama supporters to Black,Clinton SD's.
“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8762.html
March 27, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this were the case, Richardson needs to resent his endorsement.
Resent=resend
March 27, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the fact that Hillary is backed big some big money players, they can throw around their big money weight.
Seems like this is the name of the game.
I like how they re-emphasize how the regular delegates should exercise independence just like the supers...
Why even have a primary season for Christ's sake? It seems we should just let the big money donors and the Supers make the decision for us.
And all of this comes from the same campaign that writes off the caucuses and states that don't matter because they vote Republican.
March 26, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "And all of this comes from the same campaign..."
Just think how a Hillary administration would carry itself. Bush II wasn't even this arrogant in his campaign, and once in power he had a "mandate" to serve his corporate masters.
A Hillary Presidency would just about be the death knell for liberalism in America. Hand over the keys to the corporations and bow down.
March 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those signers are a bunch of Jeff Gilloolys. Would they rather see Hill destroy Obama and throw this election than see Obama win?
March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big donors having a tantrum, holding breath, stamping feet, and bellowing through tears:
"Where. Is. the. Candidate. We. Bought?"
Life's hard sometimes.
March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like some fat cats see their power slipping away. They looked into a future where a candidate can go directly to the people for funding thus bypassing their monopoly of influence.
They were scared.
They through a tantrum.
The End.
March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink