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
Sinbad wants everyone to know where his money goes. Check it out, Pelosi. Do you really want to turn off the Sinbad spigot?
Sinbad/Clinton '08 - Some people who have a lot of money are mad that they threw all of their money away on an ineffectual, unpleasant candidate
March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they missed the part where Obama's raised $100 million or so in tiny, average-person donations.
Big donors have gone the way of the Betamax, the HD-DVD, and the landline. Screw 'em.
March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see. The letter writers are in effect telling those states yet to hold primaries/caucuses that in the end their delegate counts will be meaningless. The choice of a nominee lies exclusively with the super-delegates.
So why are they saying that Pelosi's remark ignores, in a sense dis-enfranchises, those who have yet to vote when it's the letter-writers who've effectively done just that?
March 26, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like a 400-foot neon sign with HRC's picture on it and the words "BOUGHT AND PAID FOR" flashing beneath it.
March 26, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
RECOMEND
March 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a letter from the The Big Fat Cats who made stupid Investments on Bear Sterns.
They gave all that money to Hillary and they are now realizing that it was a worthless investment.
Hey there Rich Fat Clowns; Nancy Pelosi is not the Fed Chairman, and she is not going to bail you out because you were reckless enough to squander $150 million on a junk bond candidate.
March 26, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just the candidates that are looking more and more poor as this primary season drags on, but the whole democratic party.
Pelosi -1 for taking impeachment off the table
Pelosi +1 on immunity for telecoms
she's even, let's see what she does.
March 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just another flank of the Clinton campaign's "last throes" assault. I was truly struck by how much Hillary is beginning to resemble George Bush. The same stubborn refusal to accept reality. The preference for magical thinking and "truthiness". The same indifference to popular will.
Will Clinton treat her party as Bush has treated the soldiers? As a throwaway that's expendable in her quest for "larger goals"?
I would fully support Clinton if she stayed in the race, so long as she was using that time to fight for issues she believes in. But staying in under some stupid assumption that Obama can be brought down with slime and delegate poaching is not only self-destructive, but will help another incompetent Republican run roughshod over our country's common interests.
March 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok so someone start digging up all the information on these donors, and their specific interest in influencing this campaign and supporting Clinton.
March 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stated the beginnings of one below. Needs more though.
March 26, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to be humble when you're entitled.
March 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another $100 for Barack's campaign...in honor of Nancy Pelosi.
March 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might be a good idea for us to send a donation to the DNC with a nice note telling them that we're buying our party back.
The 20 big-name donors (and the Clintons) can all go kcuf themselves blue.
"Of the People, for the people"
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
DCCC would be better, as that is the Committee for getting House Reps elected.
March 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reaction too. This inspired me to donate yet again to Barack Obama. Anyone else?
March 26, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in for another $50.
March 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do both.
March 26, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blackmail. Charming.
The character of Team Clinton shines through yet again.
March 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm...yes.
And the envelope was sealed with wax and a brass knuckle imprint.
Yeesh. These tactics are almost comical.
March 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Nancy Pelosi had to do was keep her big mouth shut on this issue, instead of repeating, exactly, the Obama line.
Obviously, playing the role of an honest broker was just too damned hard for her, even though she is by her role as leader of the House Democrats expected to show real impartiality on such matters.
I should think that a donor might notice Pelosi's utter disrespect for their side in the issue.
March 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and said donors can go f*ck themselves.
Take your ball and go home.
You can't play by the agreed upon rules.
You can't play nice with your own team.
You can't stop hurting the team, the league and the sport.
SO F*CKING LEAVE ALREADY YA BUNCH OF LIEBERMANS.
The 28% of you that would vote for McCain if you don't get your way are worthless to us Democrats anyway. Do it now. Stop wasting our time and leave the f*cking party. I assure you that you will NOT be missed.
This party is bigger and more important than Hillay F*cking Clinton and her 20 Big-Money Masters and it always will be.
March 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very intelligent comments, anchored by that oh-so-clever Lieberman canard.
Do me a favor. Wipe the spittle from your lips, and understand this: Obama's not getting elected without that 28%.
Good luck with your little side project though. I assume you'll be starting a very effective 3rd Party?
Worked for Ross Perot! Oh, wait...
March 26, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely that cuts both ways, no? If someone on your side of the divide can look at her statement and perceive a pro-Obama bias, then surely someone on my side of the divide can look at her statements and see the same. Maybe you are less inclined to donate to the DNC on that account, but I am more inclined now, and there are more of the people like me than there are of the people like you (as evidenced by Obama's popular vote lead). In other words, even considered from so mercenary a standpoint as the strictly financial, it is not obvious to me that Pelosi has committed a meaningful blunder here.
March 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
which donors...? the 20 who signed the letter or the nearly 2 million on Obama's website?
March 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
FranklyO, Pelosi is playing the role of an honest broker, by standing in opposition to a superdelegate coup that would destroy her party. Apparently Hillary's big $ crew would prefer a broker on their payroll to serve their narrow interests. How "honest" is that?
March 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear 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:
F*ck you. F*ck you very much.
March 26, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And finally it just comes down to blackmail. My hatred for Hillary Clinton just leaves me sputtering....
If she wins this nomination.... I'm just totally speechless with rage.
March 26, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another reason NOT to vote for Hillary, for the good of the Party.
March 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC."
We won't give you $$$ anymore unless you support our candidate.
March 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This letter doesn't seem to be all that private to me since I am reading it on the TPM website.
I have an idea for Pelosi. Ask Obama to appeal to his small donors to contribute to the DCCC to offset the influence of Clinton's big money donors. I'm in.
Fuck Steve Rattner.
March 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of which, I wonder if Greg's source among the 20 Dildoners who released the letter realizes that it is being used to foment even further Clinton hate?
March 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why, if by some chance Hillary emerges as the nominee, I will leave the party for good. Oh, I'll vote for Hillary I suppose, but as I'm pulling the lever I'll be hoping for the Democratic Party to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by something much better.
As it stands now, it wouldn't take much.
March 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton wins, I'm going to wait and see what McCain's willing to put on the table. If it's a good offer --- like disentangling the Republican party from the southern strategy --- switching will be no sweat off my brow. If not, I stay home.
March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dem party insiders are so insufferable this year. Telling us in January the superdelegates would decide it, trying to buy second primaries in Florida and Michigan, which is so fundamentally antidemocratic as to nauseate, now telling the Speaker of the House how to speak.
F*** them all. Seriously. Their day has passed. The advent of internet fundraising has killed the influence of the megabundlers. Clinton and Bush were the last gasp of that politics.
The party is being taken back by the people -- that's the lesson of Dean's early success, obviously the lesson of Obama's masterful campaign, and even of Hillary's late surge in fundraising before Ohio.
Their whole "you can't have a Democratic Party without us" shit is contemptible. They also can't have one without us, the Democratic voters.
Knowing Pelosi, I think this attempt at putting a chokechain on her will redouble her efforts. Sorry, hostage-taking HRC fatcats, your puerile powertripping days are at an end.
March 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel the uncontrollable urge to donate to Obama right now. Yes, I think that will do just fine.
March 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. private letter?
2. where have we hear this before?
3. Nancy, in the nicest possible way, please tell them to kiss your ass.
March 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
4. Disregard #3.
Tell them in no uncertain terms in the harshest way possible to kiss your ass.
There, fixed.
March 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty ridiculous. First they claim that superdelegates represent the interest of the people just as much as pledged delegates. Then they say anything that even hints at diminishing the "voice of the voters" is unacceptable when they themselves have continually done this by saying caucuses don't count and that only big states count. Make up your mind and quit trying to spin everything that doesn't go your way.
March 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary donors are correct when they say that superdelegates are supposed, according to the rules, to use their judgment. According to the rules they are not expected to necessarily reflect the results of the primaries. If they were bound to vote for the candidate with the most pledged candidates, there would be no reason for their existence. The party didn't create superdelegates to be rubber stamps. It was Pelosi, not Hillary, who said that the superdelegates should behave contrary to the rules of the DNC. Pelosi suggested that superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. At one point she said they should do so, even if that candidate did not win the popular vote. Hillary correctly maintains that superdelegates should follow the rules which say that they are free to use their best judgment for the good of the Party in the general election.
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary correctly maintains that superdelegates should follow the rules which say that they are free to use their best judgment for the good of the Party in the general election."
Good. Then they'll still vote for Obama.
March 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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."
I believe this is the line that - besides even thinking of sending such an inappropriate letter - irks most people. Flying the suggestion that Nanacy needs to remind people that pledged delegates are not necessarily pledged. You know - Hillary's latest BS line. Of course each campaign gets to choose its own delegates - so you know - chances of swaying one should be about nil.
... somehow it wouldn't surprise me if Hilary tried to sue for their judgment on some BS claim of Obama unsuitability.
March 27, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Clinton: I wanna be Madame President, and if you don't nominate me I'll take all the toys home with me.
I wasn't crazy about either Clinton or Obama (both are a bit too conservative for my taste), but I'm less impressed with Clinton every time she or her supporters pulls this kind of sh*t. I'll probably need a breath mask to vote for her if she should be nominated.
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So THAT's who Hillary's working the night shift for...
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, That's what Hillary's been holding out for. Hoping her machine will somehow fix the nomination.
Good for Pelosi! She's my Senator and made some pretty good moves lately.
Who did those clowns think they were screwing with? And what were they thinking? Look at Obama's donations and get some perspective, jackasses.
March 26, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here they go- the attempt to steal the election in on. The only difference is that Hillary is trying to stay above the fray by using her "donors."
Its stealing the election either way.
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why didn't they just fund MI. & Fl. and take a rest?
Right, it was Howard Dean, and that non DLC DNC.
Obama's $55M, you know, we will get back to you!
So dose this mean they will fund McCain or go after down ballot Dems. who don't support them.
O.K.! Obama may raise $250M for the general, and Geffen and folks are in the wings; I betting on Pelosi to tell them to go elsewheres, like to hell.
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. Can we find their addresses and write them back?
March 26, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a complete and total disgrace. I hope it backfires. Really, this is totally disgusting.
March 26, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
Its a private letter, huh? Thats why they sent it to you as well as probably everybody else on their mailing list too?
March 26, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing Pelosi's office released it.
March 26, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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."
So not only should you tell the Super-Delegate to ignore the number of states won by Obama, his lead in the pledged delegate count and his lead in the popular vote, you should also make it clear to every pledged delegate that they are free to change their vote and should consider doing so.
March 26, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Greg.
Awesome get. Thanks for posting.
March 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, be more open to Hillary stealing the election or else we'll take our money and go home.
Course, if Hillary does that, than Obama's donors, which include a million new donors (like me and my partner), will take their money and go home.
Does Pelosi want the Dems to be the party of the millions or the party of the dozens? Doesn't seem like much of a quandary to me.
March 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary,
Thank you for tearing the Democratic Party apart.
It is, after all, not about America, but about you.
Hey, if by some chance you do get to be President, I bet you're going to love all those
"signing statements"--just think what you can do with those!
Just keep on Burning Down the House--and let us all live with the tragic results.
March 26, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not more money to the Obama campaign. It's time to send money to the DNC. What if folks start making $25 contributions and say: There's more where this comes from, especially if you get rid of these fat cats who are trying to hold our party hostage?
March 26, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Not one intelligent response to a letter that is factually accurate about the role of superdelegates, and about Pelosi's own self-contradiction (she is my representative, BTW, and I like her, but I, too, didn't like this attempt of hers to bind the superdelegates). The superdelegates were created NOT to be bound by the same rules that bind the pledged delegates--yet NO ONE here is suggesting that maybe the problem is with the system, not with Sen. Clinton.
It really is too bad that it sometimes seems that all Sen. Obama's supporters have is vitriol.
March 26, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This thread is filled with the only intelligent response: rage.
March 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not quite: they do have the winning candidate.
March 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really disagree that the Democratic primary system has problems - I hope we can get it changed for the next election cycle. The problem is that you don't change it in the middle of a primary. This is the system that all candidates accepted and endorsed at the beginning of the primary. These are the rules by which all parties agreed to play. Senator Clinton has repeatedly argued for changing those rules in the middle of the primary. Superdelegates were NOT created to overturn the will of voters. That's a fallacy. Yes, they can vote as they choose, but no one should realistically believe that they are going to give the election to the candidate who trails by some 150 pledged delegates at the end of the race.
No vitriol intended.
March 26, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, how sadly true. Why I totally remember when these guys wrote Hillary to express their dismay about disenfranchising the late states back when she was telling the Sunday morning show guys it would all be over on Super Tuesday.
And can we please stop pretending that we have super delegates for any reason other than that the swells who write the rules decided didn't whan to have to go to all that tedious trouble of declaring for a candidate and getting selected as a delegate in order to come to the big party?
March 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, doesn't Pelosi have a right to her opinion, just as much as Hillary has to hers?
I don't think it's the topic of the letter that's controversial, we all know the superdelegates can pick Micky Mouse if they wanted to.
But the TONE of the letter is threatening. You don't threaten people who you need to support you... that's just dumb. And deserving of ridicule.
March 26, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to think that Hillary supporters are incapable of analysis. I hear the "factually correct" phrase very consistently. Just because something is factually correct doesn't make it right.
March 26, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess (Hillary endorser) Maria Cantwell and the gov. of Tennessee can expect their angry letters soon, too. How dare they suggest the superdelegates follow the will of the voters!
March 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a resounding YES!
March 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder who leaked the letter -- Pelosi or the bundlers
March 26, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are not a constituent and want to contact Nancy Pelosi, here's the link. I sent her a letter just now expressing my outrage at this letter and letting her know I'd be making one of my small donations to Obama in response.
http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
March 26, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be sure to THANK Pelosi in your letter for speaking her mind, and not bowing to any outside pressure.
Either Hillary wants the Supers to make their own choice, or she doesn't. She needs to recognize some Supers will choose to vote based on the pledged delegates. That is their right, as it is Nancy Pelosi's right to advocate one way or the other.
Hillary can't have it both ways: Either the supers are free to speak and vote as they please, or they are not.
March 26, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaker Pelosi,
I just saw that you're being pressured by big-money Clinton donators.
I'm a small-money Obama donator who'd like you to stay strong and keep seeing the reality the Democratic Party faces, in spite of the noise and mud that's in the air now.
It's all just made me make a second $25 donation to the Obama campaign.
Thanks for what you do,
(my real name)
March 26, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad part about this is that they think things like this aren't going to get out in the media and backfire.
I got news for you folks: inside politics doesn't remain inside for long these days. If you don't want to look like douchebags to your constituents, don't pull crap like this.
March 26, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This aggression will not stand, man.
March 26, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's such a frustrating thing when something called "democracy" gets in the way of your control.
Poor little babies are have their power threatened. They will stomp and pout and hold their breath until they turn blue. The plutocracy is threatened!!!
Yup, count me in on another contribution to Obama's campaign.
I say we take a broom and sweep out the trash.
Are these people responsible for the "impeachment is off the table" catastrophe? Did they threaten Pelosi then too?
March 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long before we find out that Hillary's campaign actually drafted this letter? Does anyone really believe the "direct question" Hillary was asked in her editorial board interview wasn't a set up? Much like her planting people in her townhall meetings? I swear it gets worse everyday.
March 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extortion is the word to sum up this letter. The money bag holders seem to think they should run this party and the party's leadership must answer to them.
This is just another slimeball pulled out of Clinton's kitchen sink strategy. Maybe she picked it up from her new pal Richard Mellon Scaife.
March 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
once again, do you really want to go down the extortion road?
African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.
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.
“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8762.html
March 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess CHANGE really is scary -- on many levels.
March 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure most have seen this, if not, enjoy...a few seconds of an ad precede the clip.
Hillary's Inner Tracy Flick
http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786
March 26, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, the rules do let superdelegates vote their conscience. But the Democrats not only need to avoid any foul play, but also any perception of foul play. And if Hillary gets this election through the superdelegates, there are going to be a lot of Democrats who will view this as totally unfair - and this will divide the party. I don't think Obama supporters who say they wouldn't vote for Hillary are necessarily objected to her as much as they are to what she would need to do to be the candidate.
March 26, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My letter to Nancy Pelosi (with my permission to copy, xerox, adapt as any of you may see fit to do).
Dear Ms. Pelosi,
I read in the news today that you received a letter from several donors to the Hillary Clinton campaign urging you to “clarify your position on super-delegate,” preferably in a way that suggests that super-delegates should not give any weight to the pledged delegate and popular vote lead.
I too have been a strong supporter of the DCCC. I have shown that support not through huge donations of money, but with time canvassing, phone banking and yes giving money when I could afford to do so. I am one of the millions of people who made a small donation to the Obama campaign and have made small donations to Democrats in the past. I can’t afford seats at big dollar fundraisers and I can’t afford a big fancy lobbyist, but you and the other party leaders cannot afford to ignore the collective voice of Democrats.
What these donors are suggesting is both distasteful in its whiff of influence peddling and potentially disastrous in terms of party unity and energy this fall.
Thank you for speaking out strongly in favor of respecting the will of the voters on your March 16th appearance on This Week. I hope you will continue to speak out in favor of a fair, democratic and transparent process.
March 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack should make some comments on this, show the public how Hillary is trying to blackmail the Democratic party.
March 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This list of people is a shocking example of who owns the Clintons. No wonder it has been so hard to tax hedge funds when the Clintons are in these peoples' pockets. Obey us or we take our meony away. Shame on them. The Clintons are even more out of touch than I thought.
March 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question:
I thought Hillary was all for women's lib.
Can't Pelosi say what she wants to say?
In any case, these kind of desperation attacks are really, really bad for Hillary.
You don't get people to support you by THREATENING them.
Well, at least if you're a Democrat you don't.
March 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this means that Richardson was right in announcing his support of Obama, right?
He was simply using independent judgment after all.
March 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Can someone now please send a letter to Pelosi berating her for taking impeachment off the table?
March 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any question who has better coat tails?
March 26, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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.."
These "major" supporters aren't just talking about superdelegates exercising their options, they are talking about pledged delegates too.
March 26, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise:It's what the Dem party became under BClinton prezidency & DNC under McAuliffe,Just like the Repukes with "big" donors or a few folks controlling the Dem agenda least we forget Corp.profits over people and the outsourcing of our jobs.It's Clintonism.
March 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of hooey!
1) "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... have a right to be heard."
2) "optional independent actions of each of the delegates"
Well, which is it Hillary gazillionaires?
Or are we supposed to be so confused as to buy both at once?
March 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway Pelosi can quietly tell these people to go f-themselves and form a third party if they don't like the results of the will of the people?
March 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Nancy Pelosi explained to those Clinton donors that it would be inappropriate for them to attempt to buy an election. Extortion is generally frowned upon. The DNC doen't need their stinky money.
March 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Wait until all the primaries have occurred.
2. Support the intended purpose of the superdelegates, their independence.
Only in the minds of Obamites is that a threat or extortion. To the rest of the world it's about due process.
The real nomination process is just about to begin. Get your popcorn and have a seat. Bwahahaha.
March 26, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi says to wait until June 3rd.
She also says this:
"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
That's Pelosi's opinion, and she has a right to say it.
Hillary can threaten all she wants, it won't change Pelosi's mind.
March 26, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fogu2, Due process arguments from a Clinton supporter are per se laughable at this point. Your candidate has been crying for the rules to be changed in her favor mid-stream ever since it started to dawn on her that the Feb 5th coronation wasn't going down.
Try this on for size: you can't consistently argue that: 1) we should allow all primary voters to have their voices heard because failure to do so is disenfranchisement (i.e. bad); and 2) once Obama wins more pledged delegates through these contests (which is essentially a mathematical certainty), the superdelegates and pledged delegates should feel free to usurp the will of these voters and vote their own conscience at the convention. You see, the disenfranchisement part that animates the concern in step 1 magically disappears in step 2. Do you get it or do you need the symbolic logic version?
March 26, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your only contribution to this is to generalize by calling people Obamites? You are hurting the discussion by generalizing. Tell us an intelligent, well-reasoned argument and we'll discuss. Calling people names and generalizations... that just makes you and only you (plenty of intelligent Clinton supporters) seem lacking in reasonable conversation.
March 26, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And no one is binding them. Unlike Hillary, no one on the Obama side is saying change the rules on how SuperDelegates should vote. We are just suggesting a criteria they should use when deciding their vote. That criteria was chosen so that the party would not blow itself apart by not appearing to honor the will of its constituents.
Btw, in my own mind the SuperDelegates should follow the pledged delegates unless something out of the ordinary happens that can not be accounted for by simply going by the pleaded vote count. Like take a fictional situation were Republican, urged on by a radio talk show wacko partisan, voted in the Democratic primary for the candidate that was easiest to beat.
March 26, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of Ferraro: "You really shouldn't mess with people like me!"
Those pesky voters are forgetting that money is in charge around here!
March 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Nancy likes to be told what to do.
Unlike Hillary, she's the real deal.
March 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice,
Just like Bill telling voters in Kentucky today something like don't let them steal this election from you.
It is Hillary that is trying to steal the election away from the voters. It really is disgusting and just one more reason not to vote for her - ever!
March 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The irony is almost too overwhelming. A bunch of donors write to Nancy Pelosi and claim to be "speaking for" voters by demanding that she stop telling super delegates to listen to voters, and claiming the authority to do so because they donate a lot of money.
There's something really wacky about claiming the right to speak on behalf of voters on account of the fact that you donate so much money.
March 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
brain donors. to cheney's army of shambling zombies...
March 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is extortion. No doubt.
But, this is the essence of the entire battle. The race between Hillary and Obama has always at the core been about Big Money vs. The Grassroots. It's why Hillary is fighting so hard. She is their candidate. If she loses, they lose. Now (Thanks to Greg) it is more out in the open. Good.
A lot of us already knew the battle lines. Hopefully, this gets some attention in the press so more people can see the vileness associated with Big Money.
March 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Insults used as blackmail. Super delegates came about for a purpose...if you didn't like it you should have said so at the time. Not at the time they are to do what they were created to do. They don't represent "independents or republican cross overs" voting in the dem primaries, they represent the democratic party. It's the way it's supposed to operate no matter who they may favor. If you disagree with their function then join the party and get rid of them for the next primary election because they are there for this one.
March 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for them.
Let the voters vote and count before spewing about superdelegates.
March 26, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The choice is between the DLC establishment or the Wellstone style movement.
These big money people are used to being able to buy their elections, and its pissing them off that instead the voters get to decide.
And go by the rules.
Which, by the way, Clinton adviser Ickes helped form those rules, and voted FOR the sanctions.
March 26, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree with the Clinton supporters that it is nonsense to say that superdelegates should feel obliged to vote one way or the other. Superdelegates should be free to vote for whichever candidate they prefer, for whatever reason seems most compelling to them as individuals. That said, if you seriously think that it is at all likely, once all ~900 supers weigh those various considerations which appeal to each individual, that they will break decisively for Clinton then you are kidding yourselves. They are leaning further and further to Obama as time goes by (even in the immediate wake of her Ohio victory he picked up 12 while she picked up only 4), so the idea that they are suddenly going to rush in to put her over the top is just too far-fetched to credit.
March 26, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, somehow I doubt that they'd be completely content with the superdelegates backing Obama with their independent judgment.
March 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: The question is what Supers should or shouldn't do.
This is the question:
What does it mean when the top donors chide and demand the Speaker of the House to change her opinion on the issue?
And you and I don't fully know how much influence these donors have in the party and if the influence is sufficient to swing key number of delegates.
This has a lot to do with the influence of big money or our politics.
That's the key issue here.
March 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is, who will speak for the 12.6 million people who have voted for HRC, if you want to get technical.
Here's another: should the 13.4 million who have voted for Barack get to dictate the outcome before the process has run it's course?
Sorry, but Pelosi must maintain at least the appearance of neutrality, and she couldn't even do that. No wonder her tenure has been so lackluster.
March 26, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why stay neutral when one candidate is actively hurting the party? Pelosi obviously doesn't think Hillary's "McCain has mad CIC cred" or her plea for a superdelegate coup are in the best interest of Democrats. As a leader of that party I'm glad she isn't sitting idly by. Blind neutrality does no one any good. What was the benefit of the media remaining virtually mute and "neutral" when Bush and Co. were BS-ing the country (and Hillary) about weapons of mass destruction? That worked out well, huh.
March 26, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you - the Super Delegates should be allowed to make their decision at the END of the process.
If that were today, I think they would choose Obama. But people have to be allowed to vote, no matter how badly some Obama supporters want to cut that process short
If the Super Delegates choose Obama in June, he wins. That's it.
March 26, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate watching a desperate campaign flail around. This gets more ham-handed by the hour.
March 26, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent distillation of the issue!
Way to go getting the big money influence out of politics Hill!
March 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I read it, the big dollar HRC donors won't be able to donate their way around HRC's certain negative impact on down ticket Dems if she's the Dem candidate in November. It's Obama's coattails we need, and the better trade off for Pelosi is to ignore this silly threat and ensure that the Congressional races are as favorably positioned as possible. And why is there any reason to believe that Obama's fundraising capacity can't be turned to bringing in loads of small donations or the DCCC once he is the nominee? We're better off without HRC and her big-dollar supporters.
March 26, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The people deserve to have their voices heard! How dare you suggest that the people's voices actually matter!!"
It is far too long to repost, so if anyone wants to read my full breakdown of this latest shameless example of Hillary's attempt to hijack the democratic process you can read it here:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/new-tactic-attack-and-extort.html
March 26, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this also a list from AIPAC?
March 26, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, we can't let Pelosi and Reid steal this election by denying Florida and Michigan and giving us a candidate who is sure to lose. Hillary is our only chance. Obama is radio active now since his assocation with a racist hate cult has been exposed.
March 26, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Bud, The only racist hate cult around here is made up of trolls like you.
March 26, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, isn't Pelosi a Super delegate? And therefore can't she exersize her judgement about the role of Supers? And isn't she free to say whatever the f*** she wants about anything she wants to? I hope this letter tips her into an outright endorsement of Obama. Wish I could vote for her (maybe a VP slot?)
March 26, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, maybe the shamelessness of this letter will tip a few more superdelegates to Obama.
March 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that the letter was leaked. It's clear to me that someone wants this out in the public domain. Who was it that said sunlight is the best sterilization?
Someone once said about Senator Obama that the current power structure will fight hard to hold on to thier position, and that he represents a threat to them. This letter clearly demonstrates that some people are getting very nervous.
March 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, please, PLEASE let her tell them to push off. Enclosing a check a la Howard would be a nice touch, but from Nancy, I'll take a craftily worded letter, thanking them for their support, and telling them to go pound sand. She just might redeem herself after all.
March 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
From before Clinton "announced," I have believed that there was no way, none, that she could possibly win the general election. Since late February, when Obama conclusively demonstrated his viability, I have wanted Clinton to withdraw. And I believe that the last several weeks of "kitchen sink" flailing have demonstrated beyond doubt that Clinton is not staying in primarily for the Democrats, but rather for herself.
(Of course, it takes a heapin' helpin' of arrogance for anyone to be a politician; duly noted.)
But to criticize a leader of the Democratic party for, heaven forfend, trying to, you know, lead her party, strikes me as totally absurd.
I don't know what beef Pelosi and Clinton have with each other, but it's clearly deeply held, don't you think?
March 26, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is radio active now since his assocation with a racist hate cult has been exposed.
O indeed he is. Why just yesterday Donna Brazile, who is an uncommitted superdelegate, took Hilary to task for her attack on Obama by way of Rev. Wright. Oops, wait a minute that doesn't fit with your thesis.
Ok, let's try this: the Democratic gubernatorial candidate from Texas, Chris Bell, sent an email to registered Democrats in Texas this morning, supporting Obama and Rev Wright,and taking the Clintons to task for their attack on an African American minister who garners a shitload of respect.
O, damn, that doesn't fit your thesis, either...
March 26, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't it make you mad? I fail to understand why two dozen wealthy people have the gaul to put pressure on NANCY PELOSI to decide what to say to her party. Do they think they are better than the MILLIONS of democrats who donated to Obama? THIS IS LUDICROUS! We, MILLIONS of Obama supporters should sign an internet letter to Pelosi stating that she should keep her word and better yet urge superdelegates to go for Obama sooner, rather than later. We obviously are bigger in number of supporters and dollar amount given to the democrats. Our voice is much bigger than that of a dozen wealthy donors. This is a new day in politics and the internet have made the voices of small donors stronger than the few wealthy!
March 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had it with the Clintons. The cynic in me always believed that all the politics is only a show put on by the few for the enjoyment of the many who have no say.
Obama changed all that. However, the Clintons have given up on pretenses and this letter sheds light on the inner political machinations in their ugly nakedness.
Most certainly the Clintons have lost my vote. They have no shame.
Felix
March 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but the hispanic swing effect is greatly lessened if, say, a lot of black people or young people or young black people or college students, etc show up to vote for Obama.
March 26, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what her supporters did in Florida.
Basically they said, seat the delegates as is, or give us back all the money we've given to the DNC.
Add that to the Michigan revote that was to be paid by big Clinton donors, and you can come to your own conclusion about what she's trying to do.
Ok, i'll say it, she's trying to blackmail the Democratic party in order to win the nomination.
March 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any rule which says that super-delegates have to vote for the candidate with the most delegates? If so, what is it, please? If not, shut up.
The Obama campaign, for all of its talk about "new politics", has worked to deprive the voters in Florida and Michigan of the opportunity for a re-vote because the Obama people are afraid they won't win. Some democracy, huh? "New politics", huh?
And here they're crying because they want to make up some imaginary rule that says that super-delegates have to vote for Obama (er, I mean the candidate with the delegate lead who coincidentally happens to be Obama - a mere coincidence, I'm sure).
Obama politics resembles the old Chicago politics more than being any sort of "new politics".
March 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any rule saying Pelosi can't be of the opinion that superdelegates SHOULD (not ARE REQUIRED TO) vote for the pledged delegate leader for the good of the party?
March 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have an inability to distinguish between what is required and what is right. We are not arguing that they must vote that way we are arguing that they should. It is the ethical thing to do. Under the rules they can vote for whomever they choose. Your candidate argues that they should vote for her. We argue that they should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. I think that it does not make much difference because even if they are voting for the candidate they think is best they will choose Obama by a majority. Hillary has gotten all of them that she ever will. The rest of them are going to break for Obama the second week in June if not sooner.
March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Michigan legislature shut Clinton down.
Fact.
She lost. In the legislature. She didn't have the votes to get her hastily drafted new law to the floor.
I know it's hard, but that's what happened. The elected representatives of Michigan voters shut her down.
Oh, the irony. Clinton's big money donors threatening the elected leader of The People's House, while Hillary Clinton natters on about democracy.
March 26, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but the hispanic swing effect is greatly lessened if, say, a lot of black people or young people or young black people or college students, etc show up to vote for Obam
That's certainly what happened here in Dallas County during the primary.
It's anyone's guess what happens in the general, though I have a pretty damn good idea what will happen here - Obama will win the county. Of course, Kerry won the city in '04 and just barely missed winning the county. But Obama will take Dallas County in November if he is the nominee. If it's Hilary, I honestly don't know. I'm not making that up, either - I can't call it. She might take the suburbs.
March 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just send the letter quoted below to Nacy Pelosi showing my support of her initial super-delegate directive and I suggest that everyone do the same.
URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact
March 26, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken,
thanks for posting the link to the Speaker. I sent an e-mail in support, too.
March 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me to.
March 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, thanks for the idea.
March 26, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response is that I just donated to the DCCC.
March 26, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, it's crazy how sometimes something can be staring you right in the face and you don't see it. You're right about the flawed logic - let the people vote!...so we can have the superdelegates overturn the majority of voters in the end.
March 26, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This letter is disgusting. Not only do they think their money buys Hillary Clinton, they think it buys the whole party. Same thing when Dean was threatened with having to give DNC money back. Obama's going the right way. Get money from the people. Not these big money donors with swollen heads and illusions of grandeur.
March 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are millions of us will never support Obama after his racial shenanigans and association with "Rev" Wright. *IF* he gets the nomination, we will work to defeat him. We must repudiate racial politics from our party. 28% of Hillary supporters will NEVER vote for Obama. Greatness can come from defeat.
March 26, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We must repudiate racial politics from our party."
By defeating the black guy?
And nice avatar. Is that your way of repudiating racial politics?
You're not even a hillary supporter. Another GOP troll. This place is starting to stink with you f**kers.
March 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said! LMAO!
March 26, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need or want the help of folks like you. Go vote for McCain, sing bomb Iran, and give yourself a huge high five for being post-racial.
March 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to be "post-racial" when you're white.
Just wait until Obama is President. We'll see how post-racial these f*&ks feel then.
March 26, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a letter from Tony Soprano or John Gotti. Face it guys, you LOST.
March 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: We bought her, please don't break her.
March 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really hope that the MSM picks this up as major news so these jerks get exposed for what they are.
March 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will you call on Kerry and Kennedy to back the will of people since Hillary won Mass?
March 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure if all the super delegates do it.
March 26, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No because I am not arguing that each superdelegate should ratify the vote of his/her constituents. I am arguing that thye should confirm the majority of the pledged delegates. But either way Obama wins, so I guess it is a wash.
March 26, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, no problem. If every elected representative votes in accordance with the will of their constituents- best case senario for Hillary- it breaks right down the middle. And Obama still wins easily.
In fact, DailyKos had analysis few weeks earlier projecting Obama would have lead among super delegates- if that was used as a benchmark.
If you really want to be fair, we can draw it down to congressional districts for congressional members and Obama will have about 60% of the Supers elected for Congress- because of his big victory margins and small margins in loses.
Why don't you suggest this to you Madame?
Seems fair to me.
March 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are either completely missing the point, or you are just going out of your way to be disingenuous in order to support Hillary. I'm guessing the latter.
The point isn't that superdelegates should follow the voters at the state level, this is a NATIONAL election, and the point is that whoever the voters pick NATIONALLY should be the winner.
And I'm sure there are superdelegates supporting Hillary is some of the 30 races Obama has won, compared to her 14, so you can keep bringing up Kennedy and Kerry, as you people usually do (I'm assuming because they are the only superdelegates in the few states she has won that you know of), but for every Kerry or Kennedy there are plenty of Clinton superdelegates supporting her in Obama's states. So let's do everyone a favor and quit making these stupid arguments, because they aren't making her supporters look any smarter.
March 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaker Pelosi,
Don’t let these bastards intimidate you!
Would they be writing this if the shoe was on the other foot? Of course not.
And seriously, who gives more money to Democrats?
Is it these 20 bozos whose donations are concentrated in the hands a very few self-serving and obviously entitled and arrogant people?
Or is it the millions raised from grassroots /netroots activists?
Seriously.
Who actually has given more to the party, the presidential candidates and the people running for Congress & the Senate?
Top donors or individuals?
As soon as these same bozos started threatening Howard Dean a couple of weeks ago – implying they’d either withhold or ask to have their contributions returned - the grass roots/netroots stepped up to the plate and started making donations to cover the few hundred thousand in question (which is all it actually was when we started looking at who gave what among those who were threatening).
Ask the DNC how much they raised the weekend the reports of those backer’s threats became public.
Y
ou know where you can tell them to stick it, Speaker.
Go ahead & do it.
"The People" have yours, Howard Dean’s and Senator Reid’s backs.
Classless, loud mouth hillbillies calling Gov. Richardson a 'Judas' don’t represent real Democrats. In fact, they destroy them (just ask John Kerry about Ohio).
So, hang in there.
They don't care about the party, they only care about Bill, Hillary, the DLC and themselves.
March 26, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, why wait until the nomination process is complete. Let's just declare ourselves the winner now!
How undemocratic of the Obamites to not want the process to proceed. What exactly are they afraid of?
No Florida
No Michigan
We're ahead let's just say we won!
This is not even close to being over. Bwahahaha.
March 26, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good old Fogu, always looking out for the interests of the Dem Pary. That's Fogu, a loyal lifelong Democrat.
March 26, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. Yeah, these RNC bots are pretty hilarious.
March 26, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama plus another $200. Thanks for the inspiration big money douches.
March 26, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Nancy Pelosi a superdelegate? Doesn't that mean she's supposed to use her best "independent" judgment about what's good for the party when she makes her decision? Wasn't her statement a reflection of what she thinks would be best for the party? So what's the problem?
Oh, that's right. The problem is that big money people are accustomed to calling the shots. Gosh, I feel so bad for them.
March 26, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this fairly clear evidence that Hillary's claims that contributions from PACS, lobbyists, etc. do not demand a quid pro quo is bunk? Quite honestly, I view this position by these contributors as attempted extortion.
As others have noted in their posts, one of the real strengths of the Obama campaign has been its ability to attract small donations from hundreds of thousands of individuals, none of whom expect anything more than what Obama has publicly promised. There are no hidden promises, no secret deals, no ambassadorships or Cabinet posts up for sale.
Quite honestly, Nancy Pelosi has exhibited far more integrity and character than these selfish chumps who believe their contributions should have greater weight than the votes of the people. For some reason Clinton's supporters don't get it. The American people have had it with the savagery of the Clintons and their inability to engage in honest dialogue about the issues.
They've been so ensconced in the politics of personal destruction that they haven't any idea as to how to win a campaign based on the strength of their characters and policies.
March 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Bill Richardson affect. Just a little warning that if you do a BR, you're toast. No more leadership role, no more money.
Pelosi is the one of the few dem leader who acts like a dem.
March 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For decades the Democratic Party has been neither a single party nor has it reliably acted like one.
It's thanks in large part to this that Bill Clinton was elected and then went on to be a disastrous president for the left in America and around the world.
I don't hear or read it often, but Clinton's administration was responsible for the deaths of more people (around one million in Iraq alone) than any since FDR, whose presidency, of course, included World War II.
It's thanks in large part to the Democratic Party not being a single party that Bush has been able to get away with the most unbelievable criminality of any president in U.S. history. By the time he's through, he may surpass Clinton in numbers of people killed.
If this primary battle will spotlight some of the differences within the party, so that it can find at least a modicum of unity, excellent!
If the in-fighting means McCain is elected, which I seriously doubt -- then again, I must remind myself never to underestimate the stupidity of Americans -- wouldn't that indicate that America is still not ready for a modicum of sanity at the head of its government?
If so, that would be a great pity. But if toxic medicine is what you need, you'll just have to plug your nose and swallow it. Again.
March 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Vietnam. The US killed 'bout 2 million there and it wasn't until late 1968 that a Repug was in charge of that disaster.
March 26, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of being redundant:
Barack's victory is on us.
Yes he has won more delegates, more votes, and more states. All that is wonderful. The clincher however will be his ability to raise more money. Tons and tons of money.
This is Washington DC folks!
To quote Dylan: Money doesn't talk it screams.
We are almost two million strong. If we each give $25 dollars that sums to $50 million! You want to crush Clinton and clinch this thing? Then we got to bury them under our bullion. We need good massive number$ for March.
You know what to do.
You know where to click.
Make it so grasshoppers...
March 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
...er, it's "Money doesn't talk, it swears." But that's okay, I don't expect Bertrand Russell to be up on his Dylan quotes.
Anyway, your point is correct. Obama is by any rational, practical or fair measure soon to be the nominee. The problem is the Clintons and their campaign are not concerned with such trivialities as being rational, practical or fair.
March 26, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Andrew Sullivan (andrewsullivan.com):
Clinton's 2012 Strategy
26 Mar 2008 03:59 pm
It's clearly working. Her goal is to defeat Obama by destroying him in the next month or two, not by making a positive argument about herself. By ramping up his negatives, she also has an added threat to the superdelegates: nominate him and you'll elect McCain. And if she cannot destroy him this time, and he gets the nomination, she will have so anathematized him with a segment of voters that McCain will beat him, and she gets to say "told you so" and run again in 2012. The new Gallup finding shows that it is working. It is Rove-Morris politics at its purest; and she and her husband are as skilled at it as anyone.
And that is one key reason why she must be beaten. A great deal is at stake. And the war is just beginning.
March 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point we should all just resign ourselves to a McCain presidency. I think Dowd gets it right today... Hillary is already gunning for 2012, and is happy to see Obama go down so she'll have a chance at it.
Interesting times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/opinion/26dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
March 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found Dowd's column interesting, but it's a flawed strategy. If the Dem loses in 2008, neither of these candidates will get another shot in 2012. They'll both look like John Kerry.
March 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds remarkably similar to the arm-twisting tone Terry McAuliffe took with Bill Richardson, regarding what Richardson "owed" to the Clintons and why that should drive any endorsement decision; likewise Carville's "Judas" comments. Obama's shown that he doesn't need this circle of donors to raise money, so I doubt Pelosi's that scared about the implicit threat. The more likely effect is to continue to erode Hillary Clinton's credibility among party leaders and superdelegates. If this letter was initiated or approved by the Clinton campaign, or perceived as such, this will be yet another stupid tactical error by the Clinton team.
March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a disingenous, steaming pile of crap! Yes, by all means, let the voters be heard!
(Oh, and by the way, we're going to encourage Obama's delegates to switch their votes, and we're going to encourage the superdelegates to vote against the majority. We'll let the voters be heard, but we don't have to listen to them.)
I am so incredibly pissed at these arrogant, elitists jerks.
March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Bud, hopefully you're not representative of most Hillary supporters.
But it's very reassuring to hear about your committment to repudiating racial politics. Let us know how following through with that works out for you. In the meantime, don't understatemate the power of personal self-awareness and being honest with yourself.
March 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you Bud.
Didn't Clinton win California and the same would apply to Pelosi?
March 26, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're one dumbass aren't you. I think you pretty much make it clear every time you puke on the site.
Nancy Pelosi represents not the whole of California but the 8th district of California which went resoundingly to Obama.
Yes, Kerry and Kennedy represent the entire state of MA.
March 26, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
TooBubba, it was also during the Bill Clinton presidency when the sanctions caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, if that matters a whit to you.
March 26, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's questionable, at the least, to say the sanctions had anything at all to do with Saddam "disarming."
But for the sake of argument, let's say the sanctions caused Saddam to disarm. Was it worth the approximately 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths, which included approximately half a million children, the sanctions are known to have caused? Do 1,000,000 dead Iraqis matter a whit to you?
March 27, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I not only agree with what these rich people say, but I will never forgive Josh Marshall for denying me the right to vote for him in the primary. Primaries are never over until after the convention, and any American who is eligible to be president, but who either doesn't run or drops out before the convention disenfranchises every voter in the country. And I will never give anyone any money who prevents me from voting for any candidate I might want to choose.
March 26, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold your ground, Speaker, and I'll be giving to the DCCC. There are more of us than there are of them.
March 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Query: How do you simultaneously argue (1) that the primaries must take place so that the will of the people can be known and their choice honored and (2) that the delegates who are chosen by 'the people' because they will vote for a certain candidate are not required to honor their "pledge" to do so?
I guess in Clintonworld this doesn't present a problem: they are both arguments that the Clintons **want** to make and therefore they are, by decree, complimentary and consistent. Back over here in the mundane world of facts and logic, it makes no sense.
I keep thinking that **surely** it's become so blatant and stupid that the voters must see through this ....... and then I remember that GWB was re-elected and lose all hope.
March 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have sent a supportive email twice now to Speaker Pelosi. It has been returned twice with the note, "delivery failed." Full mailbox?
I also sent $$$ to the DNC.
March 26, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This letter is incredible. It should be on display for all democratic voters to see. I don't care who you support - the power donors shouldn't be making veiled threats to the DNC like this.
I thought the RNC was supposed to be the party of wealth and the privilege.
The time has come for a third party...
March 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
$30 more just donated to Sen. Obama. FU HRC & Co.
March 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget Democratic Party politicos and politics...
The Republicans are worse....
Understand we're living in an oligarchy and take it from there..
March 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On a personal note I would like to add that this is the first election that I have donated to a political candidate. If you can not already tell I am a Barrack Obama supporter. To be honest, my enthusiasm for this election has taken me a bit by surprise. It snuck up on me, and before I knew it I was donating, following online political discussions, and now even writing to the Speaker of the House." KenM1
Just sent a letter to Pelosi and DCCC with donation. If enough of us express disgust, it may get a response.
March 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political fatcats trying to kneecap the Speaker of the House, who dared speak out against their chosen stooge. So this is what's really going on while Hillary hangs up the "let the remaining primary voters have their say" windowdressing.
March 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: We bought her, please don't break her.
LOL!
I was thinking something along the lines of "we really don't lose our money..."
But I like yours a lot better.
March 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a letter should be drafted, copied and sent to Hillary's people telling them that they are destroying The Party of Jefferson, period.
Or an online letter addressing all of them that the public can sign? Sort of like what Robt Greenwald does over at Fox Attacks?
Hillary is too polarizing an individual to ever become POTUS.
Bottomline, the problem with most of her supporters is that they haven't a clue about any of this and are just supporting her because she is female.
Come November when the 527s come rolling out against her every Dem will be horrified and it will be more of the same I told you soing that happens.
And Hillary's supporters will be nowhere to be found, won't want to hear or know anything about the demise of the Democratic Party, why?
Because most of them could care less about politics in the first place, let alone The Party.
Most of the Obama supporters have a genuine concern for The Party and how it will be left after all of this is over.
And Obama's supporters are made up of The party's future, not it's past. Which is enormously important.
March 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a moment and write to Speaker Pelosi if you support her position. You can do it here: Speaker of the House
I just did.
March 26, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tonya Harding and her 20 kneecappers. Wonderful.
March 26, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need both types of donors. I've given to both, most recently and more to Obama (nowhere as much as these guys have given to Clinton) and I'm fine with their general point. Pelosi certainly doesn't represent me in anything and she should shut her yap and let it play out.
March 26, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has played out.
March 26, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a democrat and I have never voted for a republican. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for McCain. That is just the truth. Obama is not ready to run this nation. I don't understand the infactuation, but I love my country and will not hand it over to just anyone. I am a black male also. I know these ultra liberal blogs are filled with hate, but many people feel the same way I do, and will never support Obama. I use the think repupublicans were our worst enemy, but now I see we are our own worst enemy. There is a reason democrats have won only 3 presidencies in the last 40yrs. Dems do not know how to pick a candidate. They go off of pure emotion and details and experience be damned. Fellow democrats please wise up to how you treat one another. The Clintons are democrats who have done great things for this country. You would think they were the most racist, worst people in America reading these comments. It is sad, very sad.
March 26, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, Sadder than the fact Party is being sold to big money?
It is infact sad very sad. We've seen this angle of agony before.
March 26, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you support McCain's Hundred year war in Iraq. No wonder you support Hillary. She also supports McCain to continue Bush's stupid war, which Hillary stupidly voted for, and has now endorsed War Monger McCain to continue it, if she does not get her way.
March 26, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK Bret, go vote for McCain. In the meantime, please explain to all of us who are blinded by hate how the Clintons have done such great things for this country. Give specifics. Perhaps you could start with NAFTA, GATT, and the dissolution of the Glass-Steagal Act.
Of course, that would require a minimal degree of intellectual honesty. Good luck with that.
March 26, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I don't believe you. You obviously have an axe to grind. No one with any sense of history could argue that Obama isn't ready to run this country. He has more experience than Lincoln, better judgment than Clinton (or McCain), and stronger charisma than any president in my lifetime.
March 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No one with any sense of history could argue that Obama isn't ready to run this country."
I'm sorry, are you joking?
March 26, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sad to see fat cats pulling strings only to find out they are not attached to anything any more.
Is it not?
March 26, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it's time to get back to the fundamentals of what a primary process is. This is not really an election and it is certainly not a matter of public right. Primaries are the process by which a private organization, in this case the Democratic party, decides who it's candidate will be. The Clinton campaign has been making a lot of noise about "disenfranchisement" and "voice of the people" and so on. Of course, they are making those noises because they are behind, but it brings up a relevant point.
I would suspect that the origins of primaries being staged as statewide elections was an attempt by the parties to shift the cost of their selection processes to the states (taxpayers) and so it has taken on the appearance of an election subject to public access. It is, however, nothing of the kind. The political parties, for all of their institutionalized acceptance, are no more than private clubs and their selection process has no more constitutional or legal connection than that of the local PTA.
The Democratic party, for right or wrong, established the rules of its process and eliminated Michigan and Florida from the process. I happen to think that was an unfortunate decision, but Clinton agreed to abide by those rules and then immediately and unilaterally abandoned that agreement. And now, further, she is trying to reframe the situation as something it is not in order to gain a narrow personal advantage.
This is not about elections or rights or an electoral franchise. It is about a private club picking it's candidates. An unwillingness to abide by rules that turn out to be inconvenient is a hallmark of the unsavory kind of ruthless power mongering that we have gotten all too accustomed to from the Republicans. This has got to stop.
And, as for the argument that the Florida primary got untracked by the FL Republican legislature setting the date, since when has the Democratic party allowed the Republican party to set it's primary schedule? Is that really a good idea?
s/ Increasingly disgusted in CA
-SR-
March 26, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some Democrats have shown real spine and integrity, but the Clinton's are a powerful force.
The Michigan legislature did shut it down. I was shocked they bucked the Machine, but they did.
Clinton's brand new, tailor-made election law didn't get to the floor, much to her surprise.
Hence, this tactic.
She lost in Michigan. She didn't have the votes.
She doesn't care.
March 26, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, just sent $100 to BHO, and this letter to Speaker Pelosi, CC'd my Gov and Congressional delegation as well.
Dear Speaker Pelosi-
Thank you for your service to our country, and to the Democratic Party.
I read today with disgust a letter, addressed to you, which can only be interpreted as an attempt to blackmail the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the most powerful woman in the United States. This letter from so-called significant Clinton donors implies their money will dry up if you do not publicly endorse their scheme to throw the Democratic nomination to the candidate with fewer votes, fewer delegates, and the fewest states won. I ask simply that you hold your ground, for the good of the country and our Party.
Perhaps I am especially sensitive to this scheme, as I am a local Party leader in a red state- one of the states that Senator Clinton and her surrogates say doesn't matter. I am only too aware that a Clinton candidacy will mean no money and no support for my state, while simultaneously punishing Congressional candidates simply for being associated with her toxic campaign.
These tactics are too frequent, too pointed to ignore. For years, I have consoled myself that even in lost campaigns the Democratic Party was fighting for the common people and the common good, for civil rights and economic fairness. Foreign investors do not write our foreign policy, oil corporations do not write our environmental policy, multi-billion dollar corporations do not write our labor policy and tax code, and we do not use the politics of fear and race baiting. This blatant effort by twenty individuals to hijack the nomination process because of their corporate interests, combined with the gut-wrenching tactics of the Clinton campaign, flies in the face of all I have believed of the Democratic Party.
Please help me fight for what's right, what's good in this country. Please stand up and defend the millions of us who do not make millions of dollars, who do not have the option to buy our place and the political table, and who don't happen to live in Democratic strongholds. We matter, too.
Again, many thanks for all your efforts.
March 26, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
every time she or one of her proxies opens their mouths, i write another check for Obama. getting pricey, but worth it. the Clintons have no moral compass, only self-interest.
March 26, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, my. This may have been a mistake. Releasing these names.
Sort of a "who's who" of Clinton sleaze, from the '90s.
Start with this name: Susie Tompkins Buell. Google.
Isn't this a textbook example of what's wrong with our government? The Clinton bigwigs are telling the elected Speaker of the House to shut the hell up?
Bought. And. Paid. For.
March 26, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Bud White,
Since you brought up race in a thread that is discussing the Clinton donor letter to Nancy Pelosi, I wonder why you would bring it up here.
Oh, the superdelegates!
Here you say: Will you call on Kerry and Kennedy to back the will of people since Hillary won Mass?
Bud WHITE, Kerry and Kennedy supported Obama which was their right, before the primaries. So are you suggesting that they change their votes because you have a racial problem? It would appear.
March 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaff?
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.
No Josh, this is no gaff!
March 26, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to but her mailbox is full. :(
March 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are these idiots aware that they are in the Democratic Party, not the Rethuglican Party?
Who the hell do they think they are? And who the hell does Senator Clinton think she is that she is bold enough to try to blackmail the Speaker of the House?
I didn't think the Clinton campaign could disgust me any more than it already had.
I was wrong.
March 26, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check:
Nancy Pelosi is a Super Delegate, so she has just as much right to state her opinion as Ed Rendell who is pushing for the Super Delegates to vote for Hillary. Surprisingly enough, Hillary's Cluster of Fat Cats did not send a similar letter to Rendell to tell him to cool it until all the voters have had their say.
Donations for my monument project to honor Hillary Rambo Clinton as The Heroine of Tuzla have dried up.
Damn you Sinbad!!!!
March 26, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Bret, we will simply cancel each other out. Because there is no way I would vote for someone who obfuscates, manipulates, and plays victim within the inth degree simply because she thought her candidacy was inevitable. Had someone told me two years ago I would not be voting for Hillary Clinton, I would have laughed in their faces. My oh My how silly I would have looked. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and if I could only get those votes back. At least McCain fought and was tortured for his country. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a travesty of poor choices the first being the man she chose to marry!
March 26, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such a distinguished list of donors. Most of these Clinton donors are either shady business people, in legal trouble or past recipients of the Clintons presidency largess. The DNC and the democratic party need to turn that page and close the door on these parasitic power brokers.
Here's one example:
Yet Korge critics remain. One of them is his first cousin and a former Miami Beach mayor, Alex Daoud. "He's a phony," Daoud hisses. "The guy is an absolute fraud. I would love to see him face-to-face in the street or in the ring."
The 65-year-old ex-pol served as a Miami Beach commissioner and mayor from 1979 to 1991. Just days before his final term ended, the feds indicted him on 41 counts of bribery, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion. Two years later, a jury found Daoud guilty on one count of bribery; he later pleaded guilty to four counts of obstruction of justice and tax evasion. He served 18 months in federal prison.
March 26, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that most superdelegates won't override the will of the people. Atleast I hope not. I think it is fine for them to vote independently, however if the rule is such that they can overturn the popular vote, then obviously it is a very undemocratic rule within the Party. If some superd's do overturn the people's vote they know they will be chastised.
Clinton will do whatever it takes to win, she is a fighter. She will use the flawed, undemocratic rules of the Democratic Party to try and win more delegates. I think that is why Obama supporters are angry.
As an Obama supporter however, I think they should run together. It won't please everyone, but it is a compromise. Whomever comes in first gets to run for President, and whomever is 2nd can be VP. That is democratic. I think everyone needs to swallow their pride if we want to defeat McBush.
Also if you think Hispanics won't vote for Obama, you are wrong.
March 26, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to the letter from the “fat cats” about how they want the party to be run and telling Pelosi to shut up, I donated another chunk of chump change to Obama. Life is tough when you can no longer buy your politicians and have them at your beck and call.
March 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
*** Mark Alan Aronchick
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
One Logan Square
18th & Cherry Streets
27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933
Phone: 215.496.7002
Fax: 215.568.0300
Email: maronchick@hangley.com
March 26, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
Haim Saban (Hebrew: חיים סבן; born 15 October 1944 in Alexandria, Egypt) is a television and media proprietor. With an estimated current net worth of around $3.4 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 102nd richest person in America.
Saban summarized his politics in a 2004 New York Times interview with the statement, "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."
Saban has donated to the US Democratic Party and the Israeli Labor Party, he has also donated to Republicans including George W. Bush, and has business affiliations with Rupert Murdoch. In the 2001-2002 election cycle, his Saban Capital group donated over $10 million to the Democratic National Committee[3], the largest donation from a single source up to that time.
March 26, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That one speaks for itself.
Just what we need: another Israeli hawk buying influence in the White House, because Manchurians and neocons shouldn't be limited to one party.
March 26, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
To hell with them
March 26, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady de Rothschild (born July 2, 1954 in Oradell, New Jersey) is an England-based American entrepreneur. She heads the Luxembourg-based wireless broadband company FirstMark Communications Europe, launched in 1998 which raised $1 billion in funding, and has board members including former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Washington power-broker Vernon Jordan as board members.
Aged 16, Forester went on holiday to Israel and stuffed her suitcase with jeans, which she sold when she returned home. In 1984, she realised that communications was the next big industry and quit her corporate law firm for a job in mobile phones. Five years later, she persuaded Motorola to buy her a stake in a small Puerto Rican company, which she later sold back for £50m. She then used this seed money to secure licenses for broadband radio in the US in the 1980s.
March 26, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Henry Kissinger on the board. Great. Surely because he knows a lot about broadband and wireless, and not for any nefarious reasons. :rolleyes:
A lot of ties to Israeli hawks too. Which makes sense considering Hillary's backing the Iraq war and general ME hawkishness dovetails with elements of AIPAC's zeal.
And it should be mentioned that AIPAC's hawks are prominent and powerful, they don't represent the views of most Jews in the US, and certainly not in Israel, but represent the more extreme and warmongering elements of Likud who want to annex and settle most of Palestinian territory, and oppose a two state solution.
March 26, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the heck do they think they are? If I were Pelosi, I'd back Barack Obama right now. That's ridiculous.
March 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
Susie Tompkins Buell is a United States former entrepreneur and a liberal political donor associated with the Democracy Alliance.
Buell is often described as Hillary Clinton's best friend.[Buell is leading Clinton's fundraising efforts for 2008 in the San Francisco Bay area.[
Buell has been described as "one of the most successful women entrepreneurs of all time."[6]
[edit] From "Plain Jane" to Esprit
In 1967, Tompkins Buell and Jane Tise co-founded the Plain Jane clothing label. Plain Jane was making $2 million/year by 1970. Tompkin Buell's new husband Douglas Tompkins recommended changing the name to Esprit. Clashes with the existing partners of Esprit led to a buyout in 1975. By 1986, the global clothing brand had reached $800 million in sales. The Tompkinses divorced in 1988.[7],[8]
The early sensibility of Esprit was seen as flowing from the personalities and interests of its founders. They were once described as "a pair of San Francisco hippie merchants who sold clothing over a North Beach massage parlor"
[edit] National Labor Relations Board
Esprit de Corp. was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have illegally interrogated and intimidated $2-an-hour Chinese workers, and then to have shut down a factory to keep them from unionizing.[9] The Department of Labor found that an Esprit contractor doctored payroll records and refused to pay overtime.[10]
[edit] Leveraged buyout benefits Buell
After the 1989 divorce, Tompkins Buell led a 1990 leveraged buyout that allowed her to gain control of Esprit, and also earned her a profit of about $150 million. The buyout left Esprit deeply in debt. In two years it went into technical default on its outstanding loans and in 1997, Tompkins Buell relinguished all ownership of and involvement in the company to a consortium of investors.
In March 1997, Tompkins Buell sued the new owners of Esprit for $3 million she said they owed her in reimbursement for tax payments. Her ex-husband declined to file a similar lawsuit, saying he thought the legal basis for such a suit was thin. In response to the lawsuit, Jay Margolis, the new CEO of Esprit, barred Buell and all members of her family from entering Esprit headquarters.[11]
March 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That's all true. I grew up in San Francisco and remember well the whole ESPRIT hype and farce. For a while they were hyped like crazy and had a lot of ties in the Democratic party.
They claimed to be these Progressive ex-hippy entrepreneurs, and turned out to be really ruthless assholes known for sweatshop labor to produce their cheap and trendy clothes sold for huge markups. Total DINOs.
I had a GF who was a huge ESPRIT fan and would drive us down to their outlet which was in the warehouse district before it was gentrified. She was pretty bummed to find out what con artists they were in the end. (but then again, she has supported Perot, so disillusionment was kinda her middle name. Still a sweet person though.)
March 26, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest that everyone Google the names on this " donor " list. There reputations will tell you exactly the kind of people who see that HRC is on their side. For example Susie Tompkins Buell aka. "The Sweatshop Queen". Co founder of Esprit. Notorious union buster. All around sleaze. Thats just one of twenty. Are these really the people progressives want calling the shots from day one?? Dont take my word for it. Google away.
March 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all so simple. Disenfanchise the Democratic voters who want Obama so that Hillary can have a job she'll do anything to get.
The voting is pretty clear. Most Democrats want Obama. Hillary needs to stop throwing her, her donor's and her husband's weight around and accept that she was not chosen. If she practices a scorched earth strategy and McCain is elected, the results will be on her head.
March 26, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
Hassan Nemazee is a multimillionaire Iranian-American investment banker. Nemazee was born in Washington, D.C. on January 27, 1950 and attended Landon School, graduating in 1968. He received his AB degree with Honors from Harvard University in 1972.[1]
Nemazee has not returned to Iran since the Iranian revolution. Most of his family's property was seized by the new Iranian government
Nemazee was highly successful in business, and has become one of the top political donors in New York. During the 2004 US Presidential Elections, Nemazee was a supporter of John Kerry and a major contributor to his campaign. He was the New York Finance Chair for the Kerry campaign and has been named the "top fundraiser and donor to the Democratic National Committee for the past 10 years." Nemazee is the national finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[2] With Nemazee as the national finance chair, Chuck Schumer's DSCC in 2006 raised $115 million, outpacing the NRSC by substantial sums and thus helping Dems take control of the Senate.[3]
During his presidency, Bill Clinton attempted to name Nemazee U.S. Ambassador to Argentina. Attempts to block Mr. Nemazee's nomination were led by a former business partner calling for an investigation of Mr. Nemazee's business record. Forbes magazine published an article based on the former business partners complaint. Two years prior, Mr. Nemazee had won a $4.5 million settlement in the New York Supreme Court against the same former business partner.[4] Mr. Nemazee would eventually withdraw his nomination.[5]
Mr. Nemazee is also associated with the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC). According to the organization, he is listed on the Board of Directors
In 2004 Nemazee filed a ten-million-dollar damage claim against the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) and its coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia for accusations by the group that Nemazee is an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[8] Under oath he testified that he raised more than $500,000 for the Kerry campaign, but that he also disagreed with Kerry pursuing nuclear negotiations with Iran were he to become president. He also stated that he welcomed regime change in Iran. After the 2004 elections, Pirouznia ceded to Nemazee's demands and the lawsuit was subsequently settled.[citation needed]
Nemazee believes that he was targeted by some Republicans because of his association with the Democratic Party. "If I hadn't been Kerry's finance chair, I wouldn't have been a target. I left Iran in 1978 and haven't been back. Everything my family had was taken by the mullahs. To take someone who's suffered at the hands of that regime and turn it on its head and say that he's in bed with that regime is absolutely fucking incredible," said Nemazee in an interview with New York Magazine
March 26, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes. Another real winner. Wonder if he and Chalabi are swell pals.
March 26, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, because they both are from the middle east? What does an Iranian-American have to do with Chalabi?
I'm disgusted by the letter he signed his name to, but don't lump together all middle-eastern transplants you dislike.
March 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not lumping together all ME people you idiot.
The Iranian American Political Action Committee is a cold war ex-pat group that wants to overthrow the Iranian government and would have been happy if the Shah had remained in power. And while the Ayatollah is a real nutjob, he'd only in power because the Shah was a real crook.
In many ways this guy is far worse than Chalabi. Chalabi was just a pawn of the neo-cons, a willing stooge. This guy has great wealth and power of his own right and is seeking, and has accomplished, the purchase of tremendous influence. This isn't Gandhi, Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandella. He's not a world renown beloved populist leader. Hillary didn't seek him out on a mountain top for his wisdom, but a cocktail party for his cash. Get real.
And yes, I do have a problem when any hyper wealthy foreign nationals or expats (who remain loyal to other countries in their hearts and have no lasting loyalty to the US) seek to buy influence in US politics for a agenda involving national security.
That also includes Cuban expats that got us into Bay of Pigs. Vietnamese involved in the Vietnam war. Chileans for Pinochet. Contras for tyrants. Iranians for weapons and hostages. Iraqis for invasion. Etc.
We really need to stop harboring these expats and dissidents who always bring us their problems and buy influence in our government. They tend to be the worst people and are always trying to urge us into the most ill conceived conflicts.
March 27, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
Bernard Leon Schwartz (born December 12, 1926, Brooklyn, New York) was the Chairman of the Board and CEO of Loral Space & Communications, Chairman and CEO of K&F Industries, Inc., Chairman and CEO of Loral Corp., and president and CEO of Globalstar. During his time at Loral, he was instrumental in helping the Chinese military to acquire weapons techonology[citation needed]. He retired from Loral and his positions at its various subsidiaries and affiliates as of March 1, 2006. He is currently the Chairman and CEO of BLS Investments, his own investment firm located in Manhattan.
Schwartz grew up in the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. He is a World War II veteran and life-long Democrat. According to NBC News, from 1992 to 1996 he was the single largest contributor to the Democratic Party. In 1997 he celebrated his 71st birthday with Bill and Hillary Clinton at the White House. Schwartz became embroiled in a controversial transfer of missile technology to the People's Republic of China
March 26, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, sounds like a Hillary donor all right.
Bet he's against any technology or outsourcing restrictions on China. Bet he's happy to do business with China, a Socialist country notoriously bad on human rights, but would cry bloody murder at any sort of protectionist measures for the American worker, American Intellectual Property, or even fair standards for human rights and environmental rules so we're not trying to compete with slave labor.
March 26, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is desperate. He not only kisses Hagee, he kisses Bush and he kisses (shudder) Lieberman. That last is the worst of all.
March 26, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah that Lieberman is really gross. what kind of person would endorse him?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446
March 26, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Pelosi: If you have any sense, please start using the word "blackmail." These ten "donors" are acting as if they are $uper-dooper delegates. You have every right to voice your opinion on the subject.
March 26, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, these people aren't rich, they are RICH!
JB Prtizker - #143 on Forbes 2007 list of the 400 wealthiest people - worth $2.7 billion.
Yeah, you would hate to piss off the people with that kind of money....
March 26, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pritzker family From Wikipedia
The Pritzker family is one of America's wealthiest, and has been near the top of Forbes magazine's "America's Richest Families" list since the magazine began in 1982.
The family is most famous for owning the Hyatt hotel chain, but also controls the TransUnion Credit Bureau and the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. (so they're going to be for corporate tax breaks, and against consumer privacy.)
Members of the Pritzker Family:
* Abram Nicholas Pritzker, Jewish-Ukrainian American immigrant and father of the family of Pritzker
* Jay Pritzker, founder of Hyatt & philanthropist
* J.B. Pritzker, member of New World Ventures
* Penny Pritzker, member of The Real Estate Roundtable
* Nicholas J. Pritzker, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the Hyatt Development Corporation
March 26, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Royal Caribbean International
Environmental Record
In 1998 and 1999, the company was fined $9 million US dollars because one of its ships, the Sovereign of the Seas, had repeatedly dumped oily waste into the ocean and tried to hide this using false records, including fake piping diagrams given to the US Coast Guard. Because the company is incorporated in Liberia, Royal Caribbean unsuccessfully argued that this case was not in the jurisdiction of US courts.
(btw, $9 million isn't even pocket change to these people. Individual members of the family are worth billions. RCL alone has $7 billion in publicly traded stock.)
March 26, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cindy Pritzker, widow of Jay Pritzher, is part of Senator Obama's campaign.
March 26, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing - Hillary and her goons are arguing for the superdelegates to be used *exactly* as intended; to keep the party in control of the establishment and out of the hands of (gasp) the common folk.
Isn't the real reason for the superdelegate structure to prevent some populist candidate outside the command and control of the party elite from gaining the nomination? Aren't we just being protected by what de Tocqueville called the "Tyranny of the masses"?
Let's all just stop worrying our pretty little heads and get in line behind the pre-ordained nominee and the entrenched party elite.
Hmmmmm.... Fuck that. I'm sending another $50 to Obama.
March 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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."
Geeeez! These people need to first talk with their candidate Hillary Clinton before they sandbag Pelosi with such high minded sentences. Hillary Clinton has ALREADY made multiple declarative statements that have diminished the importance of voices in states she did not win.
March 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, can everyone just take a deep breath and try to look at this rationally. The so-called super delegates came into being in 1982 in order that the elected officials and party leaders could have more of a say in who was nominated. They are named, by the party, unpledged delegates because they are bound to the will of the popular vote or of the will of the pledged candidates.
In my opinion, that is a stupid and undemocratic part of the electoral process set forth by the Democratic Party. But, it's still one of the rules. However, so is the rule about Michigan and Florida not having delegates seated because of changing their primary dates. And, that is just as stupid and undemocratic.
The way I see it, neither Obama nor Clinton have a hold on the high road here. Obama and/or his supporters wants us to abide by the rules when it comes to Michigan and Florida candidates not being seated, but wants to do away with the rules when it comes to the unpledged delegates. Clinton and her side wants just the opposite. So, let's not get on our own high horses and point fingers so quickly at the other side. It's all about what they think will help them win, folks.
March 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss the point. The debate isn't about whether, under the rules, superdels have the power vote for whomever they choose. Of course they do. Neither Pelosi nor Obama's camp has argued that they lack such power. Rather, the debate is about how superdels should exercise their power. Pelosi is on record saying they shouldn't use that power to override the pledged delegates. Clinton disagrees, and her big money friends are trying to blackmail Pelosi into publically endorsing their perspective.
Most posts on this thread are rightfully irate that such attempts at extortion are being made by Hillary's croneys. The neutral rode you seek to travel no longer exists. One campaign is trying to drive us all off a cliff.
March 27, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia:
Robert L. Johnson (born April 8, 1946) is an American businessman and the founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), and is its former chairman and chief executive officer. Johnson is currently the chairman of RLJ Development which he is also founder. He is also the owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, a National Basketball Association franchise.
He became the first black billionaire in America in 2001.[1][2] As of the end of 2007, he is one of two African American billionaires (The other being Oprah Winfrey) in The US, according to Forbes magazine. Forbes in 2007 estimated his wealth at $1.1 billion, not enough to make the Forbes 400 that year. (The minimum amount to be on the list in 2007 is $1.3 billion.).[
Controversy
In January, 2008, Johnson became the target of criticism for remarks he made to supporters of Hillary Clinton about Barack Obama. Johnson taunted Obama about his self-confessed past cocaine use. The Clinton campaign denied this, submitting that the comments were referring to Obama's work as a community organizer.[1] In subsequent days, Johnson was roundly criticized for his comments as hypocritical given the prodigious glorification of drug use and sale by artists prominently featured on BET[2].
On January 17, 2008, Johnson sent Obama the following apology: "I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail."[
March 26, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice article from HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/dnc-paging-steve-rattner_b_27484.html
"Steve Rattner is a big money guy. When I use "big money" for White and Rattner, I'm talking about huge piles of it. Here's what Rattner's bio says: Steven Rattner is a Managing Principal of Quadrangle Group LLC focused on the firm's $2.9 billion media and communications private equity business. Prior to the formation of Quadrangle Group in March 2000, Mr. Rattner was Deputy Chairman and Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Lazard Frères & Co. LLC. Mr. Rattner founded Lazard's Media and Communications Group and has been involved in many of the largest and most important transactions in these industries."
Rattner was one of the many last minute primary donors Lieberman had at the end of the primary campaign. Check out this post from Matt Stoller on August 7th, which outlines the last minute money that came in from Mark Ratner (one t) for Joe Lieberman. The New York Times article below came out on August 10th, clearly stating that Steve Rattner (2 ts) was giving money to Lieberman, a significant sum, in the final days of the campaign.
"Indeed, several prominent Democratic donors said Wednesday that regardless of their party allegiances, they would support Mr. Lieberman this fall.
"Part of the political process includes being willing to evaluate candidates on the merits," said Steven Rattner, a prominent party donor who gave Mr. Lieberman $4,000 in the final days of the primary. "I don't agree with Joe about everything, but on balance he's been a terrific senator and he has stood up for the kind of principles that we Democrats stand for."
Feeling 'Very Good' About Giving Himself Another Chance "
March 26, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
astral66 -
Good stuff you;re posting. It should be compiled to a TPMC blog post, or somewhere, so it can eb reposted elsewhere like DKos and such. I'd think you should take credit since you've done all the work. But if you don't want to, I (or somebody) could.
What'cha think?
March 26, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done! and posted at TPMC. Please feel free to clean it up, add to it, and repost elsewhere.
March 26, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does ANYONE wonder why the Clintons won't release the donor list for Bill's library?
I can 100% guarantee you that it's chock-full of people like this. People like Denise Rich. Remember her $600,000 bribe to get her felonious husband Marc pardoned?
I'll bet a lot of these people are looking for the same treatment, and they have confidence that Hillary will be just as bribable as Bill.
March 26, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
All in all, it's interesting to see who some of the DNC's top donors are. Better to appease them than to have those piles of cash used against us, don't you think?
March 26, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also wrote a letter and I'll be making a small donation to the Obama campaign in the near future (hey, I wanna win that dinner with him).
March 26, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am personally acquainted with two of the signatories of this attempt at blackmail. I respect both of them for their career success and I appreciate their support for the Democratic Party over many years; but I know their complaint has more to do with their own expectations of rewards in an HRC administration. One is hoping to be Secretary of the Treasury and another Ambassador to the UK in a HRC administration. Chelsea actually works for one of them. I can hardly imagine the distress they feel as these entitlements slip away. Their sense of personal loss has certainly blinded them to the damage she is doing now to the Party they have supported for so long.
March 26, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the insight. The funny thing is that motivated small donors, if organized, could raise more money for the party in a month than these twenty rich spoiled brats have contributed in a decade.
March 26, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
A diary at Daily Kos suggests:
---
You can write letters, emails telegrams etc...but they will have limited impact. If you really want to get their attention that the net roots is changing the landscape of fundraising for our Democratic Party...give money.
Here is how you do it. Go to The Democratic Congrssional Campaign Committee Donation Link
https://dccc.org/page/contribute/drivingchange?source=032008_cd
and donate whatever amount you want...small is OK because we are just trying to get their attention at this point...add $.08 to your donation to let them know you are a 2008 Obama donor.
---
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/192617/654/165/484946
March 26, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, it doesn't matter.
Even with the endless dumb-ass flogging of the Wright story, Clinton's net negatives (astoundingly) continue to rise.
She now has a net negative amongst WOMEN.
How in the world can Hillary Clinton win a national election with an approval rating hovering down around Bush Country?
She's unelectable. The positive number was supposed to GO UP, not down.
March 26, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see that list of contributors?!
Obviously, we, as Democrats, need to listen to the Rothschilds and these other multimillionaires / billionaires, and support the concept of elitists overthrowing the will of American voters, right?!
Next thing you know, the ultrarich will want an oligarchy running the country.
Oh. wait...
March 26, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a hopeful thought. Maybe Hilary is reaching the point of diminishing returns. If Obama wins the nomination and the Republicans dredge up all the mud she's throwing now, perhaps her tactics will by then have shown her to be so out of her mind with ambition that anything she's said will just sound like insane gibberish to anyone who hears it. Obama's serenity in the face of all this has been maddening to me at times but he always seems to wait it out and not let her goad him into losing his head and saying some of the stupid things I've wished he would say. He is playing this incredibly smart. Anyway, I've just sent $50 to the DCCC-and let Nancy Pelosi know I've done so.
March 26, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to believe that Nancy Pelosi would make a stupid politcal calculation, isn't it? (I'm no Robert Johnson, but the DCCC isn't getting a penny of my money either.)
March 26, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like in Obamaland people can't tell politicians the reasons they won't support them anymore. Are you lovin these new Obama rules?
March 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the insightful post dude, but they aren't telling Pelosi they won't support her any more. They are telling her they won't support the Democratic party if she doesn't take a public stance that will help Hillary override the pledged delegates.
Unless you are a billionaire this should piss you off too.
March 27, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny! Lately I've been saying: "I'm giving all my money to Obama. Call me when the primaries are over."
I didn't mean it as a threat though. Apparently you do. Guess I better start throwing some money their way now.
March 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a farcical woman Pelosi is. Why even have Superdelegates if Pledged Delegates are all that matter. Superdelegates were created precisely to stop someone from winning by playing the sort of numbers game that Obama is playing. They were created precisely to stop a candidate from winning by ramping up delegates in 11 states where Democrats lost by an average of 15 points in the last election cycle. That is the sort of foolery Obama has done. If we were looking to have the Republican states determine the Democratic nominee then we could have just gone with McCain. Have him run against himself. I guess something like that would make sense to a nimrod like Pelosi.
March 26, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.
FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.
While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," “deliberately misleading,” “literally willing to do anything to win,” and “playing politics with war."
This "full assault" on Hillary's integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary's victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama's top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a "monster;" and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is "deeply flawed" and has "character issues." That's neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?
March 26, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This okee is a RNC troll or maybe just stupid. Typing "FACT" with such tripe just makes okee look more clueless. Regardless, Hillary can't win.
Here's some actual "FACTS" for the reality based community:
Hillary needs to win >65% of the remaining vote, on average, in all of the remaining states, to be competitive with Obama in pledged delegates. She's only won by large margins a couple times, and there is no way she can hope to accomplish that because she's losing in a few upcoming states and even in her best states she doesn't have that big a lead.
March 27, 2008 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
"The Math" is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of "the math," have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.
In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's "full assault" on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.
MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must "overturn the will of the people."
FACT: The race is virtually tied, the "will of the people" is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.
The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow "overturning the will of the people." They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.
An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the "will of the people" is just words.
March 26, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Face the facts Okee...SHE'S TOAST.
See the latest NBC/WSJ poll...people can't stand her and she's not getting any more likable waging the kind of gutter campaign she's waging.
March 26, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's become clearer by the day how the power elite will NOT let the electorate wrest control away from them. It's a travesty that kids are not taught in economic classes that the Fed is actually a PRIVATE consortium of central bankers controlling the entire source and supply of $$$ that you and I own. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, the JP Morgans, etc. are all controlling interests of the Fed. Just Google "Truth Federal Reserve" or any articles by Ron Paul about the Fed. Our hard-earned savings and wages are a pittance compared to what these guys can wield with the Fed system. Basically, they own the printing presses - they can conjure up ANY amount of US$ they want to hold on to their power, to destroy or support their candidate of choice who will insure their destiny. When they throw a few hundreds of millions of $$, channelled through a network of individual donors who max out on their donations to Hillary, it's nothing. They are far richer than the Gates and Buffets of this world, their wealth is hidden. Kennedy signed an Executive Order 11110 in 1963 to issue a new note backed by silver which would compete with and erode the Fed notes we all own, and the rest is history.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1279
March 26, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, they had the convention while I was napping???
March 26, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is a good idea for each of us—right now—to donate $100 to Barack Obama’s campaign, and ask one other person to do the same. Also, ask that person to ask one other person to do the same and so forth. We would really teach those fats cats that we the people are united and serious about reclaiming our Nation and the democratic process and that we support Nancy Pelosi’s leadership. I am going to start right now. I challenge you all to do the same. Maybe somebody could email or write Pelosi and inform what we are doing.
Terry Johnson, Sr.
tljsr127@gmail.com
March 26, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
excellent idea. i just sent off my $100 donation to senator clinton as well!
March 27, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing all the hatred on display here and on other blogs, as well as from some real-live people I've had the misfortune to encounter, I am increasingly fearful that the USA will have to endure another 8 years of George III in the person of John McCain.
Most of this hatred is coming from the Obama camp. It is they who have repeatedly said they will go home if their man Obama is not the nominee.
It is they who have talked about the "will of the people," who have shouted most loudly that their candidate is leading in both delegates and popular vote.
Factor in Florida and Michigan, and none of these remain accurate. With the delegates and popular vote from just Florida, this race would be even closer than it is now. And make no mistake, it IS close.
But the Obama camp will have none of it. The will of the people? Yea, except for a few million, many of them minorities, living in Florida.
I guess for the Obama people, following some arbitrary rule is more important than the "will of the people."
Once upon a time, the rules said blacks and women couldn't vote. Once upon a time, the rules said people of color could be owned. Were these rules in the form of laws right? Of course not. Just so, the rule that disallows the votes of those in Florida and Michigan is not right. If Obama was really who he likes to make himself out to be, he would enthusiastically endorse the acceptance of these disenfranchised voters, as would his supporters.
But I expect Hell will freeze over before that ever happens.
March 26, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Powerful stuff!! Yes, I remember how Hillary screamed in protest last summer when Harold Ickes and the rest of the DNC Rules Committee voted to penalize FL and MI!! And how she told the public radio station in NH that she didn't take her name off of the ballot in MI because she believed so strongly that MI should count!!
Oh, wait a minute....
March 27, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
In that I have no party affiliation, I am truly independent. In the light of my responsibilities as a Pastor, my decision to remain party-neutral is to me a religious expedient. However, I am deeply moved by and attracted to Senator Barack Obama's pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify our nation. This is why I have decided to work to help the Democratic Party elect Obama as its candidate. If they do elect him, I will also work to help him be elected as our next President. If they do not elect Obama, I will vote for McCain.
Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed it best, “He [Barack Obama] is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation" and, "...can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded."
I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe he is an agent of change, and a person of courage, thoughtfulness, and sympathetic and prophetic insights; unfortunately, such courage and thought have been quite rare in politics.
What America is experiencing is bigger than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. As an African-American male, my decision to vote for Barack Obama has little—if anything—to do with race or gender. The race, gender, or party affiliation of our next president is not very important, especially to Independents and swing voters like me. I want to believe in the greatness of this Nation. People want to be inspired and feel hopeful of the nobility of their leader's deeds.
Barack Obama could govern the country with the support of a large bipartisan coalition, as opposed to more polarized support for Hillary Clinton. Obama embodies the best hope for uniting the Nation, and leading a bipartisan effort seeking strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges.
The rekindled hope Barack Obama inspires in the hearts of many people coupled with a bipartisan effort for change and unity is a sweet-smelling balm for our troubled Nation.
March 26, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This move by DNC fat cats could not make it clearer that there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Dem Party. Both are wholly-owned subsidiaries of multinational corporations who expect their bought-and-paid-for candidates to fall in line. Pelosi could be a problem because she's a multimillionaire fat cat too, and she's not used to servicing others. These people may have to get rough with her and that black guy to get things straightened out in this campaign. BTW, did anyone see the news piece aired today on CNN about the scholarly analysis of the Bobby Kennedy shooting--it just turned up all of a sudden from nowhere, recently completed. Seems he was shot in the back by his security guard. Something to think about before deciding how to reply to that letter Nancy.
March 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the fuck are these people? I've never heard of any of them.
They apparently don't know what the word "democratic" means.
March 26, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Veronica Corningstone, your letter to Speaker Pelosi was great and well written. I would like to know the address to where you sent your letter. I would like to do the same.
March 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if you look at the recent poll, far more Clinton people have said this than Obama
Actually, yes, it's still accurate.
And, of course, it would be the essence of disenfranchising to have an election that doesn't count, and then, suddenly, announce that it counts.
March 27, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's another big difference.
Obama supporters only say they'll be PO'ed if the SD throw it to Hillary against the pledged/elected delegates. It was always fair game for Hillary to win in elected delegates and for Obama supporters to unify behind the FAIR winner. Now that it impossible for her to do so, people are saying they won;t support Hillary if she wins, because it could only be by SD fixing. It's a matter of principle.
By comparison, Hillary supporters have threatened that if Hillary loses the pledged delegates, and the SD don't throw her the nomination, they'll have a tantrum. Which is nonsense.
Regardless can't be encouraged because it's undemocratic and would lead to no good in the long term.
March 27, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What, no room in the letter to ask Speaker Pelosi why impeachment is still off the table?
Guess it is not important to them.
March 27, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
Thank you for your wise and sober leadership in the Party's primary period. I hope you will not feel undue pressure from one of the candidates or from the large donors to that candidate. I have seen a letter in which some of them rebuke you and seek to influence you to depart from your fair actions as the contest comes to a close.
With respect,
Sincerely,
______ ______
Washington and New York
March 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize in advance for my ignorance but did I miss something? You guys complaining about how HRC is not getting "called" on a number of things obviously missed the off air comments between Bill and Larry King in 1992. I don't have the address handy but search YouTube with a few good keywords and you'll find it. It really is the modern day version of William Randolph Hearst-like arrogance regarding the news. Larry flat out middle mans an offer of "help" from Ted Turner to man his corner. The media is complicit in the corruption of our democracy and the modern media (CNN) is steeped in it. She will never get called to the carpet in the same manner as anyone running against her. I have to say Jane really did a job on Ted but really, he still likes to inhale. If you get a chance to ever read her thesis, it should have been titled something entirely different from Obama's book.....perhaps The Audacity of Revolution or The Audacity of Anarchy. This woman will stop at nothing to upset the apple cart. Dream Ticket?????? Honestly????? Obama and Ron Paul in any order. Or Obama and McCain.....reach out across the ailse you two. But the real dream ticket, which won't happen unless he wins the nomination outright is Obama/Powell. Powell is too wise a political animal to reveal his real hopes but find his CNN interview of approximately one month ago....he unmistakably secretly hopes for Obama without saying it. This is a man who respects people. Too bad he didn't aspire to be the first black president, but he could end up more influential than anyone in this election and nobody has talked about it. Any comments?
March 27, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
HEY OKEE! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKIN'?
March 27, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is Carl Bernstein's (of watergate fame) take on HRC. Scary stuff. As I had mentioned elsewhere in this blog, she is too a mentally unstable woman to hold the Presidency of the most powerful nation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/hillary-clinton-truth-or_b_93523.html
March 27, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi obviously does not know the rules. She needs to learn what the rules are and keep her mouth shut.
She should be a proponent of the more than 2 million voters in MI and FL who have been silenced.
Shame on you, Pelosi
March 27, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously you are the one opting to ignore the rules. You're seeming to be in denial about the rules, the extensive work and numerous voices that contributed to the rules over a lengthy period of time and the fact that they were ratified by Unanimous vote of nearly 450 Democrats.
Further all issues related to the rules, once they were ratified, were not resolved with the voice of one person, but rather the voted opinion of 28+ people.
So if you want to play by the rules - Forget about Florida and Michigan, would ya?
March 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know what will happen to the country if Obama becomes President?
For one, Rev. Wright will be welcomed for a Presidential sermon.
Then, he will spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom!
Perhaps those supporting Obama should learn a bit more about his shady background with Rev. Wright and William C. Ayers, the self-proclaimed Pentagon terrorist!
Mmm
March 27, 2008 8:32 AM | 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.
I live in FL and will withdraw my support as a Democrat.
McCain ... You have a new voter! Me.
March 27, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tim: You are so right. Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers and Rezko would be coming to dinner at the white house. I read Obama's bio in the New York Times and what a background. His mother was married three times, his father four times and there are 8 children involved. All from different mothers and fathers. Obama had severe ties to Rezko and it states it on his taxes. He knew what he was doing when he chose friends like Farrakhan, Ayers, Rezko and Wright. If Rezko had dirty dealings that would include Obama too because he was his attorney. Now he wants to turn his back on him? If he was president of this country there would be a disaster like never before. And I believe he can be dictorial when he wants to be.
March 27, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polls conducted nationally by Gallup, Quinnipiac University, and AOL show Hillary Clinton leading by an average margin of 15 points nationally. According to Gallup, this marks the sixth consecutive day of Gallup Poll Daily tracking showing Clinton with a statistically significant lead over Obama, something she had not accomplished since Feb. 7-9 polling.
Clinton’s recent momentum has coincided with the controversy created by Obama’s association with the anti-US and racially charge sermons conducted by his long-time advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. See the latest Gallup, Quinnipiac University and AOL poll results. Read about the nationwide Momentum Shift on
http://votersusa.blogspot.com
March 27, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
By most accounts, the speech on race and diversity given by Obama and his subsequent endorsement by Bill Richardson appear to have had little effect on improving public opinion.
During a crafully prepared speech which was highly orchestrated and by invitation to mostly supporters and media representatives, Obama went to great length repeating reasons for his continued association and close friendship with his spiritual advisor Rev. Wright and his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama said the pastor “introduced him to the Christian faith and continues to perform God’s work.” However, Obama refused to answer questions about why he is unwilling to leave the church, thereby subjecting his children to hate and anti-American speeches.
March 27, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama's Achilles heel has been exposed and it's not clear to me that he'd do the ticket more good than harm. I used to agree that a unity ticket would be overwhelming, but now I think she might be better off on her own. With him in the lead slot, with or without her, he's sunk.
March 27, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when Obama famously declared that he could get Clinton's voters but she could not get his? Time to rethink that proposition. The Gallup Poll has Obama losing 28% of Clinton supporters against McCain (19% of Obama supporters defect to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.)
March 27, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is total hypocrisy in the comments about the DNC and other organizations. when clinton had the superdelegates in the beginning, it was FINE for them to commit regardless of vote or anything else. We all remember the headlines about chelsea calling them..........so NOW to suddenly say poelosi or anyone else needs to stay out of the system. ridiculous. I have as much right as anyone of the persons signing that letter to make my view known. Regardless of how much money i give.
and my vote and my efforts go to obama - more states, more votes, etc. clinton has ONLY A 10% CHANCE OR LESS of winning - but she does things like this. disgusting!
March 27, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lo and behold,
Its the 'Israel Firsters and Friends', telling their paid servants to shut their mouths. Their goals are pretty clear at this point, they prefer McCain over Obama, but Hillary over all of them. By they aren't gonna get Hillary this election, so they are prepping for Hillary in 2012 and the way to do it is to destroy Obama's chance at winning the election by financing Clinton's race baiting of Obama till the Convention. Its precisely the people on this letter that should encourage the Democratic rank and file to force their representatives to radically reform the electoral process from the standpoint of fundraising. As far as I'm concerned Haim Saiban is an agent of a foreign government, and he admits as much, and obeying dictates from the man is tantamount to treason.
March 27, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree salviati, are others on that list Israeli firsters?
March 28, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
These people clearly expect to be remunerated by Clinton if she wins the election - something they could never hope to get from Obama.
Quick word to the Supers: You could never get me to vote for Clinton even if you put a gun to my head. But if you want to guarantee that I will NEVER again support a Dem with my vote or my money, hand the election to the candidate who fails to win the popular vote. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only Obama supporter who feels this way.
March 27, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm a senior citizen, have voted in all elections, but have never been so disgusted as I am with this one. We ignored worthy candidates like Dodd and Biden and ended up with Hillary - a total shrew who will do anything to get her and her scummy husband (who I once admired) back into the White House. I'm not sure about Obama and I'm not sure if I'll even vote this time around, but the one thing I'm sure of is that I won't vote for Hillary.
March 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tim: You are so right. Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers and Rezko would be coming to dinner at the white house. I read Obama's bio in the New York Times and what a background. His mother was married three times, his father four times and there are 8 children involved. All from different mothers and fathers. Obama had severe ties to Rezko and it states it on his taxes. He knew what he was doing when he chose friends like Farrakhan, Ayers, Rezko and Wright. If Rezko had dirty dealings that would include Obama too because he was his attorney. Now he wants to turn his back on him? If he was president of this country there would be a disaster like never before. And I believe he can be dictorial when he wants to be.
Even worse - he's going to ask Marlo Stanfield to be his Veep, cause secretly, Obama is gangsta.
God this is getting sillier and sillier.
March 27, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
A prime example of money-politics. Big donors who feel their vote is more equal than small donors. Democrats will when the presidency and house by virtue of a turnout of voters not the turnout of big wallets.
March 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hearing two whining children: "I'd rather have a third term of Bush policies, and three more Bush nominees on the Supreme Court, than let the other, policy-equivalent Democrat win the nomination and the White House."
I'm hearing children who love themselves so much they will flush America down the Republican toilet again in 2008. America has stood against all outside threats for over 220 years, but the Destroy-America-First Republican Party of today is the worst enemy the US Constitution has ever had. Period. And anyone who would hand the White House over to them, having seen their policies and pratices in action for (at least) eight years, is no friend of America, and my enemy.
GTFU! >Grow The F**k Up
March 27, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hearing two whining children: "I'd rather have a third term of Bush policies, and three more Bush nominees on the Supreme Court, than let the other, policy-equivalent Democrat win the nomination and the White House."
I'm hearing children who love themselves so much they will flush America down the Republican toilet again in 2008. America has stood against all outside threats for over 220 years, but the Destroy-America-First Republican Party of today is the worst enemy the US Constitution has ever had. Period. And anyone who would hand the White House over to them, having seen their policies and pratices in action for (at least) eight years, is no friend of America, and my enemy.
GTFU! >Grow The F**k Up
March 27, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem with your position: after those 450 DNC Dems set the rules, the FL Republican Party overrode them, passing and signing the state's Primary schedule, and the RNC gave those Republicans half their delegates, with a wink, for throwing a wrench in the Dems' primary process.
I know not of Michigan, but all candidates campaigned fiercely and fairly in Florida, coming in person to fundraisers, and campaigning through proxies in all counties. All were listed on the ballots.
The state Dem party offered to have their primary at a conforming date, but had no money, having blown it trying to deal with the election probs in 2000 and 2004. But none was forthcoming from the DNC when asked. So the alternative was to tell all Dems to stay home that day. I really want to hear ANY Democrat, especially one that wants the White House, to go to Floridians, raw from 2000 and 2004, and tell them, "Stay Home, I don't want you to vote." That person would be guaranteed of losing that state in November.
March 27, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton fundraisers are mob-connected scum. The Obama fundraisers are Heroes of the Union. Just so's we can keep count. All negative phraseology is hokay by TPM when it comes to Clinton, but with Obama, you can't even be thinking about something negative when you write something positive.
March 27, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It comes to my mind that some or many of these "big doners" may be Rethuglian plants to try and disrupt the Democratic game. Hillary certainly has the money now to think like a conservative and apparently the friends too. We know Rove can play a very DEEP game and play long range for the ultimate stakes.
March 28, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone recently compared Hillary Clinton to Tonya Harding trying to have someone "knee cap" her opponent -- in this case, Barack Obama -- in order to win at all costs. Judging from hers and Bill's political tactics so far, I'd have to say that seems like a fairly apt comparison.
Now, they're after Nancy Pelosi because, in her personal opinion, the superdelegates shouldn't overturn the will or the votes of the properly seated and elected delegates. That's her opinion. She didn't say they had to, only that they should respect the votes of the duly elected delegates. And now Hillary's "fat cat" donors are trying to muzzle Nancy Pelosi and are threatening to cut off their donations to the DCCC. I say good riddance to bad rubbish. The Democratic Party should not be held hostage or bribed by Hillary's "fat cats." They represent themselves and Hillary's and their own interests and not the American people's.
Personally, I think that Hillary is Machiavellian enough to want to sabotage Obama in this election cycle and have her good friend, the irritable, elderly and rapidly senile, John McCain, elected. That way, she can come back in 2012 and run for President again. Call me cynical, but that's the only way I see this "fight to the bitter end" with Obama playing out. Hillary knows she won't win, but she still wants to cripple Obama. That may be sick and psychopathic, but then, so was Tonya Harding.
March 28, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm blown away by the intelligent well thoughtout posts here especially the following quote I include here:
[b]LuxVeritas:[/b]
"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"
This is a gem, LuxVeritas and it should make anyone with any dignity angry as hell to think that Clinton see's us being so dull to not figure out her little scheme.
March 28, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what do we have here now, the Democratic party's own little "Blackwater" economic group, who believe they have a right to muscle (through economic intimidation) Hillary to the nomination through their veiled threats? Please.
I got a better idea; let the whole process play out, then if Hillary doesn't get the MAJORITY of pledged delegates, take your toys and your wallets and go the hell home. Better yet, start your own party. The Republican party has kowtowed and prostituted themselves to corporate extortion and big money for over 25 years. We DO NOT need this type of unscrupulous element in our party.
Many, many people have (and continue to) joined the Democratic party recently to become vocal members of a progressive community demanding absolute change with the "status quo" government destroying our values. Kowtowing to these self-serving, amoral minions of Hillary only continues this disgusting act of entitlement.
At one time, Hillary had my support, but no more. I'm done with her; her lies, distortions, obstructions and outright willful divison and destruction of my party; the party representing "all persons" and not just her disgusting "palm padders." I'm not at all a fan of Pelosi, but I stand with her on this issue. Enough said.
March 28, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you guys wondered who are the people who actually signed this letter?
Here is one of my favorites,
Bernard Schwartz - Chairman of the Board and CEO of Loral Space & Communications. His time at Loral, his company was instrumental in helping the Chinese military to acquire weapons technology. In 1997 he celebrated his 71st with Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House. Schwartz became embroiled in a controversial transfer of missile technology to the People's Republic of China.
To check out who these people are and how much they have donated to the democratic party go to
http://endthecorruption08.blogspot.com/2008/03/donors-threaten-dncc-and-nancy-pelosi.html
March 30, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks... Good post, thanks admin..
Bu yıl borsa ülke ekonomisine katkıları. Güncel zayıflama sitesi: zayıflama lida fx15 ve biber hapı zlfvbh
August 12, 2010 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink