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.

Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift | Politics | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2645600320080327?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

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 :




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!!

Hello tom:

Yup. Blind ambition will cause you to do weird things. I don't want a pres like her. We got one now like that.

excon

This is a most interesting Democratic campaign. Harry Reid just had a brief conversation with a Las Vegas paper:


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:


"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 going to be outspent. And why don't you just pack it in and while we're at it, we're going to disenfranchise the people in Florida and Michigan, even if it costs us the general election.'”

Yesterday, Evita talked to Greta:


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.

Wonder what she has in mind?An anonymous Democratic Party Official reportedly talked to ABC's Jake Tapper (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/dnc-official-cl.html):


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?

PjSpGnq8YA0

The US. The worlds perfect example of democracy at work. Ha ha!

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 won't whoever wins get the big donors regardless. Wouldn't 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 wasn't a con at all and he got there based on what he has to offer?

Im not sute exactly how it all works but won't whoever wins get the big donors regardless. Wouldn't 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.

Skell ;would a back bencher have a chance in hell of becoming PM in your country ?

Hello tom:

Yup. Blind ambition will cause you to do weird things. I don't want a pres like her. We got one now like that.

excon
Bwe he he he!

The US. The worlds perfect example of democracy at work. Ha ha!
Democracy and elections are two different things. Ha ha ha
Look at it this way: for many years to come, playwriters and screenwriters will have a new genre: "The Clintons"

The last time the superdelegates, in their grand wisdom :rolleyes: decided a nomination over the choice of the Democratic populace, Reagan won by a huge landslide over Mondale. Nancy managed to put a burr under Hillary's saddle, but rightfully so. Oh wait! Maybe we are all wrong and Hillary remembered that Mondale won and she was "Ambassador Hillary Clinton" to war torn Bosnia? :)

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.
This debacle reminds me of the Jimmy Carter campaign. Everyone in Georgia laughed at the prospect of Jimmy Carter running for president when he announced; he couldn't have been re-elected for dog catcher. But he ran against a weak contestant and a disheartened party; are there any similarities?

Yeah George at the time I was still Democrat and brought into the Carter-mania.I see lots of simularities especially the hopelessly naïve understanding of foreign policy by the pair.

The benefit of prolonging this is that both campaigns have to dip into their coffers to finance their efforts ;that they spend lots of time telling everyone why the other is not qualified; and the ultimate disappointment of 1/2 their base. A new poll reported that 28% of Evita supporters would jump ship and vote for McCain if she lost. A smaller but similar number of Obama supporters said the same if Hillary got the nomination.

Tom maybe not PM immediately but there have certainly been candidates fast tracked to senior positions in government based on things other than past performance. Our current environment minister is only in his position because he was lead singer of a popular band who sung many politically charges songs and is somewhat an environmentalist. He is seen as being someone we can believe wqhen it comes to talking about the environment so he was given that portfolio in his first term as a member. It isn't a con.

. You have to understand how unprecedented this is ; Obama is in a house of gvt. That rarely gives us a President.Because frankly it was never intended to be the strong house in our bicameral legislature. It was created more out of a compromise by the founders.

He started running for President almost immediately after he was elected to the position. He has been MIA on most major votes because of his run . He is still a freshman in the Senate ;has not even so much as held hearings on the one sub-committee he chairs.

Check it out ;on Nov 8,2004 Obama ,a newly elected Senator said he would not be running for President because it would take too much time away from his duties. Well he was right . He is chair of the pretty important Senate sub-commitee for European Affairs .Part of his oversight is NATO's activities in Afghanistan . But being a candidate has meant that he has been completely uninvolved in committtee business... by his own admission.

The benefit of prolonging this is that both campaigns have to dip into their coffers to finance their efforts ;that they spend lots of time telling everyone why the other is not qualified; and the ultimate disappointment of 1/2 their base. A new poll reported that 28% of Evita supporters would jump ship and vote for McCain if she lost. A smaller but simular number of Obama supporters said the same if Hillary got the nomination.

The irony is that the current Democratic primary race 2008, is eerily reflective of Dubya vs Gore National election 2000. I can guarantee that if McCain was to win this election it will be a country divided... again.

This is just an aside, and don't mean to divert the subject, but I get sick to my stomach seeing either Billary or Obama in George Washington's seat. Here we have two pretenders with no thought or idea of what patriotism is or should be; just two hungry wolves out to devour anything in the way of their quest for power. Ugh!

Hello again:

As an aside back, the one thing that makes the Democrats morally superior to the Republicans, is that even though they disagree about policy, they NEVER question a Republicans' patriotism..

In fact, the more you do, the more I question your understanding of patriotism..

excon

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 !!!

Exactly what I have been waiting for ever since I said my first "GO OBAMA!!" over two months ago :D!

Hello again:

As an aside back, the one thing that makes the Democrats morally superior to the Republicans, is that even though they disagree about policy, they NEVER question a Republicans’ patriotism..

In fact, the more you do, the more I question your understanding of patriotism..

excon
Come on, excon; how could they? Lying about snipers and lying about attending racist church meetings. Where does patriotism begin with a Democrat? Raising taxes? Bigger programs?

I want to share my great admiration for George Walker Bush. A man that viewed the video of Osama Bin Laden (along with everybody else), informing the world that indeed he was the culprit. Well! Dubya knew just what to do. I could see in his eyes that natural instinct as he demonstrated the retaliation skills superior to that of a eight monkey's fighting over seven bananas. Sifting through the ruble of the Twin Towers with plenty of photo ops along side of NYC's finest, Dubya then stirred the emotions of the nation and countered as we bombed the empty caves of Afghanistan in search of the elusive Bin Laden. Oh! No! No, no, no, no! That wasn't enough! He then called on the mothers and fathers of America to show their patriotism as he sent our children into the Iraqi deserts to battle the forces of darkness. We toppled those statues of Hussein and now we wait, and wait, and wait, patiently, as the next hundred years crawl by just for that glorious day when we can call Iraq, "the 51st state of the United States." And what man could have had the sack to truly lead this nation into recession than he from the loins of trickle down down down down economics, coming from the father of the patriot himself, the once paraded Herbert Bush. Economics, shmeconomics! Nine billion dollars a month in Iraq was just the red carpet on the way to the auditorium of inflation, bankruptcy and foreclosures. George Walker Bush, I SALUTE YOU! And if any of you were true red blooded patriotic Americans, you would vote for "Rambo McCain." McCain is closer to Dubya than XY and Z. :rolleyes:

Oh N0 Babram!!

YOU HAD to go and say it!

Oh N0 Babram!!!

YOU HAD to go and say it!


;)

It is evidently OK for Democrats to question each other's patriotism however .

In the words of former President Bill Clinton "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country"

He was speaking of Evita and McCain. By implication he was excluding Obama . Obama countered and said Clintoon was engaging in McCarthyism (the liberal version of accusing someone of un-American activity ).

Up date : MOVEON.ORG strikes back!

MoveOn.org Political Action: Stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party (http://pol.moveon.org/democracy/?rc=homepage)

It is evidently ok for Democrats to question each other's patriotism however . Hello again, tom:

Nahhh, it ISN'T OK for anyone to do it. It's just a low blow - period.

Look. You and I are diametrically opposed on many, many major issues of the day. You have never accused me of not being patriotic. Why is that? You either believe the right wing shtick about people who think like me - or you don't.

Tell me. Do you hold yourself back from calling me a traitor?? I don't have that problem. I don't doubt your patriotism - your politics YES - but not your patriotism...

The bottom line is, it's a disgusting charge...

excon

You would agree with me that Clinton's implication is that Obama was not patriotic ? I think that is how it sounded even if he doesn't believe it . I think he intended it to sound that way for strict political reasons.

You have never given me reason to question your patriotism. I withhold that opinion to people like Jane Fonda who travelled to enemy territory and sat on an anti-aircraft gun pretending to shoot it at American planes.

Hello again:

As an aside back, the one thing that makes the Democrats morally superior to the Republicans, is that even though they disagree about policy, they NEVER question a Republicans’ patriotism..

Oh really, ex?


“Freedom of speech is one of our country’s most cherished values,” Reid told the Senate. “Nothing sets us further apart than the countries and regimes we oppose than our belief that everyone’s opinion matters, and everyone has the right to express it.

“That is why, when we hear things on the radio that are offensive, by and large, we tolerate them. But last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line – and while we respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments cannot be ignored." -Harry Reid


Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast." -Harry Reid et al, in a letter to CEO Mark Mays of Clear Channel


"I don't think it's patriotic to put on a flight suit and prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier looking for a photo op. We have a president of the United States who did not do his duty to take care of America. If you're patriotic, you do your duty." -Wesley Clark


"I don't think it was a patriotic war. I think it was a mistake, a strategic mistake, and I think that the president of the United States wasn't patriotic in going after Saddam Hussein. He simply misled America and cost us casualties and killed and injured America's reputation around the world without valid reason for doing so. It's not patriotic; it's wrong." -Wesley Clark


"The policy that the administration is following in Iraq is typical of their policies elsewhere. It is disrespectful of other nations. We need to be inviting in to participate in this occupation. And it is anti-patriotic at the core, because it's asking only one group of Americans, those soldiers in Iraq and their families, to pay the price of this occupation." -Bob Graham


"Real patriots don't put troops in harm's way on a flawed policy." -Al Sharpton


"I'm tired of seeing chief executives be permitted to take their millions or billions to Bermuda and leave the average American here at home stuck with the tax bill. You know what I call that? Unpatriotic."-John Kerry of George W. Bush


"John Ashcroft is not a patriot." -Howard Dean

And who can forget Michael Moore calling Bush a "deserter" (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-01-27) in his intro for Wesley Clark?

Truth be told (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/462ajcmr.asp?pg=1), much of this Republican questioning of Democrat's patriotism is imagined (http://opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545).

Hello again, Steve:

When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?

I try and do the same. An FYI since you're the first to comment, I also added that to my signature to remind me to hold myself accountable, too. :)

Steve

you would agree with me that Clinton's implication is that Obama was not patriotic ?

Candidate McCain, Clinton, and Obama, are all patriotic. However, I do question politicians for their rational at times, and on issues. In the case of Hillary it's become obvious that while in Bosnia, one of those imaginary bullets struck her in the noggin.

In the case of Hillary it's become obvious that while in Bosnia, one of those imaginary bullets struck her in the noggin.
I am glad that in my type of imaginary... I am dancing on the milky way and jumping from moon beams to a suns ray! MUCH safer I MUST say!!

I am glad that in my type of imaginary....I am dancing on the milky way and jumping from moon beams to a suns ray! MUCH safer I MUST say!!!

LOL! :)

I am glad that in my type of imaginary... I am dancing on the milky way and jumping from moon beams to a suns ray! MUCH safer I MUST say!!

Yup and you don't need to run sepentine to escape Chupacabra or the shadow people.