Clinton Campaign Stands By Harsh Letter To Pelosi

Aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that they knew key fundraisers for her campaign were sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi, castigating the Speaker over her position on superdelegates and threatening, vaguely, to withhold campaign donations.

And while they did not go so far as to say they approved of the letter's content -- "we didn't know what was in it," said spokesman Phil Singer -- they did argue that the "letter speaks for itself."

"There is clearly a broad feeling among many Democrats and many people who are active in the party," said Singer, "that the role of superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment and make a decision that is best for the party and best for the country."

On Wednesday, Talking Points Memo posted a letter penned by some of the most influential fundraisers of the Clinton campaign, chastising Pelosi for suggesting that superdelegates "have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd." Such a position, the authors wrote, "runs counter to the party's intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984."

To make sure their voices hit home, the Clinton backers reminded Pelosi, somewhat opaquely, that they had been the financial backbone of the very committee that helped elect her Democratic majority.

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC," they wrote. "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."

Early on Thursday, the Center for Responsive Politics calculated that the signatories of the letter had, over the span of more than a decade, put $24 million behind Democratic causes.

Asked whether the Clinton campaign thought it would be appropriate for party financiers to threaten to withhold funds should Pelosi not change her stance, aides to the New York Democrat restated their commitment to helping build a larger Democratic congressional majority.

"As someone who is a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who spent a lot of years working in the House, who has both friends and family working in the House, I feel, as do most of the people I know, absolutely committed to helping elect Democrats to the House in 2008," said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson. "I believe strongly in Nancy Pelosi's leadership. Obviously, some of our donors had an issue that they wanted to put into writing... But Senator Clinton and Bill Clinton will not take a backseat to anyone when it comes to helping Democrats or helping to fund the party committees. And the people here at every level are absolutely committed to large democratic majorities in 2008 and doing everything we can to helping achieve those large majorities."

On Wednesday, a spokesperson for Pelosi said that the Speaker was "confident" in her proclamation that superdelegates -- when deciding between Sen. Barack Obama and Clinton -- should take into primary consideration the tallies of both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.

"The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi. "This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes."

Comments

[Jer1957]

Pelosi is the quintessential Wall Street 'working girl. '

She is for Obama-and the defeat of the Dem Party.

That is where the money is.

As the wife of a 'private equity fund manager,' Rep. Pelosi is well aware of such things.

Wall Street's green fascist Gore pays much better than Obama, however.

Fat Albert--hopes for a convention deadlock so that he might win Pelosi's game of 'the price is right.'

We are told that "the super-delegates mustn't overturn the 'will' of the voters' --except voters in Florida--where both major candidates appeared on the ballot and Wall Street's preference, Obama, lost by a substantial margin.

[sk7326]

Where Obama and other dems did not campaign because the state did not follow the DNC's rules. The voter disenfranchsement stinks, but put the blame where it belongs. On the states themselves and/or the DNC. Hillary is being a hypocrite, as she has on the record agreed with the DNC's right to make rules.

Nobody cared less about the Democratic party than the Clintons. They brag about being the only dems to win the presidency twice in a row since FDR. They also managed to lose Congress in the very first midterm of Bill's reign, and only in 2006 did that get fixed. They were never good advocates to their party in regional races. Dean's machine has been much much more effective, the 50 state strategy has worked. Obama will be a much stronger advocate for the party as a whole than Clinton ever will be -- her past experience shows that.

[MiddleRoad1]

Actually, Hillary did campaign there. She just didn't call it campaigning. I think she called it fund-raising

[detriangulation]

LMAO! What are you smokin?

[incontempt]

and when are you smoking it?

[lannieshea]

Florida was told before it changed its primary date that the votes would not count (as in Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) and the vote was cast to move up the primary. So just because HRC supporters don't like the way the delegate count is headed doesn't mean they get to change the rules to their benefit.

[ETcali]

I don't understand how this story doesn't make a bigger headline - I mean if Clinton's donors are so bold as to write that letter to Pelosi - what letters will we never hear about being sent to Hillary if she is to win the nomination. This is by far the most open example of what normally happens behind the scenes and what we can expect from a Clinton presidency - she will always have to answer to her donors - that's specifically what is wrong with politics today. Obama will also have to answer to his donors but in his case it's the American people. Doesn't anyone see this???

[sk7326]

It has made a big headline -- the angle that is missed is that the beneficiaries of the DCCC are ... SUPERDELEGATES, so it is just ridiculously stupid of the donors to attack them.

[finethnx]

Read the letter. You don't know what you are talking about. There is a link in Stein's post. Go there.

[NURREDIN]

Am I stupid, or isn't the person with the most votes supposed to win? What happened to Democracy?

[sushi27]

Not when your running against a Clinton! Did anyone here know Hillary's Campaign leader Penn is CEO of the lobbyist company that is running McCain's campaign (ie Black). That's why if it seems like she and McCain are on the same page, THEY ARE. Penn's company (the lobbyists) wins no matter what happens. Big money and lobbyists control our country.

If she can't win, she will destroy the democratic party - Penn/Black/McCain win again - sad - embarassment to women everywhere.

[jules135]

Not according to the Sopranos -- oh, I mean the Clintons. Don't be surprised when you hear Nancy's found a horse's head in her bed...

[detriangulation]

LOL. That was the Corleones

[billis3811]

Clinton, The Corporate Candidate!

[FreedomLoverX]

It is nice to know that Clinton will, without exception, stand by every outrage, lie and manipulation she puts out. What really blows my mind, is that her followers will so gladly stand by all of her lies and manipulations too! I can't for the life of me understand that if they want change, why are they sticking to more of the same?

Hillary is a blatant, manipulative liar. Without pointing fingers elsewhere, can her "followers" admit that fact? Or are they just the willing accomplices in her enslaught of thought crimes against the American public? I do not want someone this manipulative, divisive and willing to lie in the Whitehouse. Hillary supporters, I don't get it. Why do you? WHY?

[ChiGuy]

$24 million over a decade.
That's one month's worth of fund raising for the Obama campaign.

20 donors (Average: $120,000 per year), each with one vote.
versus
MILLIONS of donors, each with one vote.

Decisions, decisions...

LOL!!

[PJay]

That does kinda put it in perspective, lol.

[robXdion]

This is like Geraldine Ferraro's threat to Obama that he doesn't want to mess with her because he might need her for fundraising. Funny and sad all at once.

[MiddleRoad1]

Hey, I forgot about that one. This is really PART 2 of that example of arrogance, isn't it?

[billis3811]

yaaaa!

[Triangle1]

Amazing how Obama can generate so much cash, yet still not pull decisively ahead of Hillary. Ask Mitt Romney, money's nice but it doesn't mean you can buy an election.

[detriangulation]

well, actually he's done better and come much closer in the states where Clinton has the demographic advantage (-10 in Cali, -10 in Ohio, -4 in TX primary) than she has in his states (-17 and over in Wisconsin, VA, MD, etc.)--whoops, Wisconsin was suppose to be a good one for her, actually.

Don't try to paint Obama as the big money candidate. He has more money from a larger pool of grassroots donors. It's Clinton who, like Romney, has fewer, big-money donors and dumps millions of her own money in. Clinton and Romney are also comparable in their sociopathic, reality-denying behavior: their talent for rewriting history from day to day as it suits them, always with a straight face.

[MiddleRoad1]

The difference is that Romney used his own money. With Obama, millions of voters are giving, to see him win. Unlike Clinton, who is beholden to the a few people who gave them a lot. Obama's bosses are the millions who gave a little each

[chaszz]

The fat cats of both parties have built this American worldwide empire up, oppressing people the world over, bombing and invading wherever they see fit, staging many coups, propping up the most vicious dictators, ruining the lives and environments of powerless native peoples, maintaining an American presence (both aboveboard and in secret) in over 120 countries, all the while feathering their own nests royally and richly for over 50 years. At this moment in the former Soviet Muslim republics to the south of Russia, we prop up several vicious dictators so they will let us build new oil pipelines. Will the Democrats under Obama free these peoples? Don't be too sure. Good luck you young and older Obama supporters in helping him try to take the reins of power, but beware betrayal. He still will have to contend with the permanent American oligarchy of both parties. Don't think they're giving up power easily or quickly, no matter who is elected. Don't be deceived by the Declaration and the Constitution. You don't rule, THEY DO.
Reform is not that simple! Take your heads out of the clouds and read Chomsky.

[diamndpeace]

I agree that the superdelegates should feel free to exercise their own judgement to do what's best for the party and what's best for the party is to not destroy it by giving the appearance of overturning the will of the people. I'm sorry Hillary, but the only statistical chance you have left is to get the superdelegates to do just that and overturn the will of the people and if that happens not only will you not win but you ensure that you're husband will go down in history for being that last Democrat to hold the U.S. presidency..or has that been the plan all along?

[aprilshowers]

Hillary Clinton and her campaign have lost their moral compass and their integrity. They really have no clue. Such arrogance and entitlement will not only be the downfall of the Party but will be the downfall of Hillary Clinton.

[LongBeachHawkeye]

I smell significant change in the air. We the people are commandeering the Democratic party away from Clinton's fat cat donors. The neocons hijacked the Republican party during the 1960s/70s. The time is ripe for us to do the same to the Democratic party. Who needs the Clinton big wig donors (24 million in a decade, please!), when the people-powered Obama campaign can come up with over 80 million in two months. Power to the people!

[JiminNC]

Evidently not but thanks for playing.

[JiminNC]

As is they didn't write the damned letter themselves?

[BJMS]

The Clinton campaign is the most thuggish, horrifying campaign I've ever seen. I don't know how any true Democrat can support them!! They look more like Bush, Cheney & Rove every day...

...and guess what??? over 2,000,000 OBAMA donors are worth a LOT more than 20 Clinton donors!!!

YES WE CAN!!!

[Denni]

SHAME ON PELOSI! How dare she enforce the rules and traditions of hte party!!!! Doesn't she know that the Clintons want to steal an election!?!?!?

[SmellTheHorse]

So the Clintons are resorting to big-money thuggery to win the Democratic nomination -- is this how the Party really wants to operate?
And isnt it cute that Steve Rattner signed the letter--who's best pal is Pinch Sulzberger, the NY Times publisher--and the word is that Bill Keller & the Times editorial board was aching to endorse Obama, but Pinch (and his wife, who is one or HRC's finance chairs) ordered up the HRC endorsement...