At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race. The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee.
Pelosi has not publicly endorsed either Clinton or Barack Obama in their hotly contested White House battle, but she recently said superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the nomination contests with the most pledged delegates -- which appears almost certain to be Obama.
"This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984," the letter from the wealthy Clinton backers said.
"Superdelegates, 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," said the letter signed by some of Clinton's biggest fund raisers.
Superdelegates have emerged as likely kingmakers in the fight between Clinton and Obama.
The group represents some of the top fundraisers and donors of the Democrat party and have contributed heavily to Democratic causes.
Here is the full text :
Quote:
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker 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
But I can shorten the letter for their benefit :
Dear San Fran Nan,
We need to let the democratic process play out so that the superdelegates can overrule it.
Sincerly ,the high rollers of the party coalition.
So on one end you have the traditional party donors threatening to close the purse string if Madame Defarge is not nominated ;and on the other end Al Sharpton threatening a disrupting protest at the Convention if Obama isn't the nomnee. You couldn't make this stuff up !!!
This is a most interesting Democratic campaign. Harry Reid just had a brief conversation with a Las Vegas paper:
Quote:
Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?
Reid: Easy.
Q: How is that?
Reid: It will be done.
Q: It just will?
Reid: Yep.
Q: Magically?
Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
Maybe that's why Pelosi changed her tune so quick? In Kentucky, Bill Clinton got testy over those who say Hillary should step down:
Quote:
"Now there's a new tactic. It's to say, 'Oh what a bad sport you are for wanting to let the people of Kentucky and West Virginia and Oregon and North Carolina and Pennsylvania vote. You could get ahead in the popular vote, but you're gonna be outspent. And why don't you just pack it in and while we're at it, we're gonna disenfranchise the people in Florida and Michigan, even if it costs us the general election.'”
Yesterday, Evita talked to Greta:
Quote:
VAN SUSTEREN: And if he says, no, I won't do it, that leaves Michigan and Florida out. And does that leave you out?
CLINTON: No. Not at all, because we are going to make sure those votes get counted, one way or another.
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
LOL, the "Tonya Harding option." Is a new theme for the Dems in the offing?
I hear rumors that Evita may have a credentials fight on the convention flooR and challenge some of Obama's delegates. Also ;Bill Clinton is right .The states he mentioned are large states and Evita has done well in them .Her case that she would carry the electoral college based on winning those states is lame but hey some super-delegates could buy the argument ;especially if they are being pressured by big rollers.
I have to say that Obama's had some great success in getting the small donor to float his campaign but in a national election he will need the big donors.
Excon ; do you think this run for the Presidency by Obama is an altruistic avocation ? Blind audacious ambition would be a new State Senator getting the party bosses to toss him bones so he can make a quick run for the Senate and an even quciker run at the Presidency. One of these day's perhaps we'll figure out how he could con so many people and make that leap frog to the front of the line.
I have to say that Obama's had some great success in getting the small donor to float his campaign but in a national election he will need the big donors.
Im not sute exactly how it all works but wont whoever wins get the big donors regardless. Wouldnt the donors give support to either candidate the Dems nominate just to make sure they beat the Repubs? Or is that not entirely true?
Excon ; do you think this run for the Presidency by Obama is an altruistic avocation ? Blind audacious ambition would be a new State Senator getting the party bosses to toss him bones so he can make a quick run for the Senate and an even quciker run at the Presidency. One of these day's perhaps we'll figure out how he could con so many people and make that leap frog to the front of the line.
Or maybe we will find out that it wasnt a con at all and he got there based on what he has to offer?
Im not sute exactly how it all works but wont whoever wins get the big donors regardless. Wouldnt the donors give support to either candidate the Dems nominate just to make sure they beat the Repubs? Or is that not entirely true?
Your not alone ......most people don't understand the laws regarding financing.
there are maximum contributions that big donors can make. Many of them have already done so . Part of the problem with campaign finance laws is that the laws are so convoluted that it just begs to be violated.
MCCain is going to be in all types of problems trying to tap dance around laws that he played a significant part in adopting . Evita has in the past been fined for violations of the laws ;and Obama has already been compelled to return some funds . In 2004 both candidates refused Federal matching funds because to accept them would;ve come with too many strings attached.
Linear Mode
