Now, Team Hillary Goes After Speaker Pelosi
They went after Barack Obama, and he proved more popular and more resilient than Team Hillary. They went after Howard Dean, and he didn't cave. They went after Bill Richardson, and he didn't give in. Now, they have come for our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.
Hillary Clinton's big donors see their dreams of a Senate confirmation hearing and a post as Ambassador to the Bahamas dying before their very eyes, and so they are making threats. Senator Clinton's fundraisers, indignant that after all of these years of effort on behalf of Bill and Hillary they may not become overnight guests in the Lincoln Bedroom, and irate that all their money may not buy them a plum foreign assignment in the next administration, told Howard Dean that he had better find a way to get Florida and Michigan seated at the Democratic Convention -- or else they'd pull their money from the Democratic National Committee.
But their ploy didn't work.
Then, James Carville famously branded Bill Richardson a "Judas" for letting his conscience come before his jobs.
Bill Richardson laughed.
And now, the same fat cats who took on Howard Dean, and failed, are going after our good Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. They are once again threatening to pull their money from the Democratic National Committee. The reason this time? Speaker Pelosi said that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people and that the superdelegates should pick the nominee who has the most votes and the most delegates.
To those whose dream is gladhanding at the Atlantis Resort, this was an outrage! They immediately fired off a letter to Madame Speaker. They wrote:
"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."
In other words, the donors, the money people, believe they are more important than the hundreds of thousands of people who have made small donations to the candidates. They believe that their money buys them a greater say in our democracy than the say that you have and that I have.
Are they right? I guess that Hillary Clinton has told them that they are indeed correct.
Now, the big $$$ people expect that they will roll over Nancy Pelosi. They will wave wads of cash at her, and hope that their threats cause her to encourage the superdelegates to pick a candidate, without paying heed to what the people want.
Speaker Pelosi is tough. I look forward to her response to those who seek to bribe her.
The Speaker won't be the last Democrat threatened by a desperate group of people, clinging to the last vestiges of a presumed power. After Senator Obama, Chairman Dean, Governor Richardson and Speaker Pelosi, Team Hillary will come after anyone who dares see things objectively. They will come after anyone who has the gall to speak up. They came for them. They'll come for me, too.
Is this the future of the Democratic Party? Is this what we want? If this is how Senator Clinton's team deals with their fellow Democrats; how would a President Clinton ever get anything accomplished in a bipartisan way?
Back in the early '90s, Senator Clinton told Jim Cooper, the Congressman from Tennessee with a health care proposal that was more moderate than hers, that she would crush him and he would regret ever speaking to her. She told Bill Bradley that she would demonize anyone who stood in her way on health care. She icily dismissed Daniel Patrick Moynihan's questions about her program.
Let's remember, Jim Cooper, Bill Bradley, and the late Senator Moynihan are and were Democrats. Hillary's plan went down in flames. So did the Democrats in the 1994 elections.
Can we really take eight more years of the Clintons in the White House?
The Obama campaign, and all good Democrats, should follow the wisdom of Dalton, bouncer at the Double Deuce: Dalton said, "Be nice until it's time not to be nice."
Democrats, it's time to send a message to Team Hillary, the team that is trying to take down the Democratic Party. It's time not to be nice.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let me get this straight: The rich goons are threatening to cut off the DCCC. The DCCC is working to get every Dem congressman re-elected. Every single one of these congressmen is .... a superdelegate. These people may be rich, but they're not too smart.
It's not only that a "Fool and his money are soon parted" one wonders how they got together in the first place.
Clinton '08 best nominee money can buy.
Let me remind you that Hillary represents the poorest of the Democrats.
It's the rich Obama goons who are buying, or trying to, buy this election.
He outspent her 4 times in buying superdelegates.
He outspent her 4 times in Texas and Ohio and still lost.
He is outspending her 5 times in Penn, and he'll still lose.
Her base are core Democrats with under 50,000 a year.
They can't send money to her like his supporters can. They are barely surviving.
So you want to talk about "fat cats?"
Please do.
If they had courage or convictions, they'd put censure of Senator Clinton on the table. Threatening her with that kind of rebuke for her unethical behavior might get her attention. Appeals to her vagrant conscience sure aren't working.
The fat cats that signed the letter gave the DNC 24 million over a 10 year period. Obama raised 55.5 million in one month. Looks to me like the little folks are replacing the fat cats in the money race.
that is what the whole battle is about. the Clintons wanted the party built from the top down where those on top lead and tell the little people what to do and they wanted the party to only concentrate on the states that they felt were Dem states. Dean wanted the party built from the bottom up and in ALL states.
They fought a bitter fight. Dean won despite the underhanded Clinton tactics to undermine Dean and the Clintons have not let up since. Obama came in and has adopted Dean's approach and run with it. It is working and the Clintons are not comfortable with this whole grassroots thing. To Hillary, who I undersatnd is a member of the "Fellowship", the little people are just that...lit
But... the tide is shifting. The little people are getting a voice thanks to Obama and the little people have shown that their little money when put together, speaks loudly.
I suspect that the fat cat donors are peeing in their pants. They know the Clinton' s would
be compliant tools, whereas Obama has been getting his money from mostly small donors
on the internet, and doesn't owe them squat. Doesn't anyone remember the damage done
to the Democrats by the Clinton's at the midterm election, who wants them screwing up the
Democratic party, for another eight years.
The Democrats look ridiculus now. They are not the same party I joined 36 years ago. The Clintons are a disgrace to call themselves Democrats and we do not need eight more years of them.
Today on Morning Joe, Ed Schultz read quotes given to him by anonymous super delegates who have said that the Clintons have been trying to keep super D's from endorsing Obama by using threats and intimidation, i.e. "You'll commit political suicide." "We remember who our friends are." "Your name will be taken off the president's list." When you add this behavior to what they've tried to do to Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson and others, the picture isn't pretty. Apparently the Clintons ran a scorched earth policy when in the White House before that was hard on other dems retaining elected office. Good for Nancy Pelosi. It took courage. Now lets all watch her back donating to DCCC/Democratic Congressional Campaign (Committee?) That's the fund to help keep dem majority in House that the fat cats threatened to de-fund. There's a lot of us. If we all give a little, we'll defang the fat cats.
If those quotes are authentic, then I can't help but laugh at the fact that the Clintons think they're so darned important and influential.
Your second paragraph, said it all.
Can we all sign letters or something to party leadership to start endorsing Obama and get this thing over once and for all..it looks that they will never get the message that the race is over!!!! they want to destroy him so she can run in 2012...she has that sense of entitlement and how dare Obama run and be winning too when it was her turn to run and win!!!!
obama is a winner; hillary is a whiner.
ordinary people pick up on those facts immediately; they say she is 'unlikeable' but
what they are picking up on , i s her whine-i-ness.
a lot of whiners are also bullies; and bullies are not leaders.
and hillary is also a bully::: that is why she lies about things like tuzla; she really does
remember being under fire because in her mind, she is always under fire.
sad, but not a reason for giving her the nomination.
So now the Clinton's are having big donors threaten the super delegates. Yeah that will work....NO
So these Clinton supporters are saying that super-delegates don't need to follow the will of the voters. If that's true, then isn't that disenfranchising those voters? I thought that Clinton didn't want to happen in Florida and Michigan. Does this mean that it's ok if it happens somewhere else? Does nobody think this stuff through? So many questions.
Are you thinking? The super delegates are there precisely because they don't have to follow the will of the voters. If the democratic party had wanted the 'will of the people' to be paramount they wouldn't have created super delegates. They are supposed to look further than normal voters when they vote. Think about this a bit - they're not normal voters; they're knowledgeable insiders - who absolutely SHOULDN'T be bound by the voters - thats not their role.
Any metric other than that of pledged delegates would be arbitrary and counterproductive. Obama has already won. HRC needs to concede and get behind Obama, so we can take back the WH and America.
That's not what the Clinton supporters are saying, that's what the Democratic party said when they created the Superdelegates. They did it with forethought and purpose. If they were to follow the will of the people, they'd be unnecessary. Besides, the popular vote nationwide can't represent the will of the people until all states have voted, and the caucus states switch to voting because they aren't producing an popular vote numbers into the total.
You're Canadian, aren't you. Research the internet. All your questions can be answered through research.
Screw the Supers if they ignore the will of the voters.
Please follow your own advice and do some research.
The super delegates were established to give a candidate with a plurality an absolute majority (50% + 1) required for nomination by party rules. This eventuality might occur in a three way race (40%,40% 20%), or in a very close election when delegates have been pledged to a candidate who has dropped out of the race such as John Edwards (49%, 49%, 1%), or in a situation such as this. Also they would intercede in in the extraordinary event that a candidate is unelectable, not unlikely to be elected, but unable to be elected (Eliot Spitzer, Duke Cunnignham, The Devil)
What they are NOT, is the deciders of the nominee, that is left to the voters in the primaries and the caucuses. These franchises are represented by the election of delegates to the national convention and the superdelegates ratify these expressions by confirming the nominee with the most elected delegates in the event an absolute majority has not been attained for reasons described above.
Do you think that we go through the whole exercise of holding 53 contests just to get a "Sense" of the voters and then have the superdelegates come in a play Daddy to tell us what is best for us.
Get a grip.
I disagree that Nancy should not take sides. It is time for all Democrats to just say who they are supporting. This election is so important. If Nancy Pelosi thinks that Obama is the best candidate she should just say so. It is time to make up our minds, settle on a candidate and concentrate on November. Clinton supporters are waiting for some bad thing to happen to Obama so that delegates will switch sides. They now want delegates that represent elections to decide what is best for the party. Why did we even have primaries then? Bill Clinton has no problem saying who is supporting. Then why can not Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter etc. come forward and just declare their support? Because they are bending over backward to be gracious to the former first Lady. It is time to end this.
Really. No need to be gracious to the ex-First Lady anymore. Not after this.
Has it occurred to anyone that this whole concept of "my delegates are better than your delegates" is a complete PHONY?? Delegates? Super-delegates? Who Cares! Delegates exist for one reason only- to disenfranchise the one voter = one vote process!!! If Obama were actually as good at bringing people together as he claims, the contest would have been over by now!
Unfortunately there still remains the dinosaurs that are kicking and screaming till the last bunker is taken. Thank god it's March and all this legacy of corruption is surfacing now, plenty of time for it to be weeded out. To the future!
So, your reply is to call me a name? To the future!
It would have been over if not for the Operation Chaos votes to keep Hillary in the race and keep the fighting going.
As alleged dirty campaigns go, veteran reporters say this one is totally lame. When Republicans get their 527's up and running you'll remember what true "swift boating" is.
With a statement like this, it is clear that you will NEVER admit to truth! Hillary is divisive. Hillary is a manipulator. Hillary is a liar. Can you admit that without pointing at Obama? Don't vote for Obama if you don't want to. But can you EVER admit the TRUTH? I know Hillary can't.
When all the dust settles I promise to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is. You want truth? Hillary Clinton has eight years of Ken Starr and sixteen years of devoted public service from which you and Obama can cherry pick everything that didn’t go perfectly as planned. You want more truth? Obama has skillfully nurtured a clean sheet from which to build on, a clean sheet Hillary could only dream of having, and Obama still messed it up. He put a radical fire and brimstone preacher on his cabinet for Pete’s sake. It was a known issue. Obama’s handlers were concerned from the beginning. What was Obama thinking? Again what was Obama thinking, very early as a junior Senator, when he let loose a tirade against Ted Kennedy? He offended even conservative Senators with that tirade. This is the man of hope? This is the man to bring people together? General polling shows Obama and Clinton dead even for President. My own spreadsheet, which excludes all this delegate nonsense, agrees with the polls: When one voter equals one vote: Obama = 50.4307518
We will win this trench war. Part of me wishes that she would concede so that things could move on. But the other part is happy she is staying in to be humiliated both with the minor win in Pennsylvania and the whuppin that she's gonna get on May 6 in North Carolina and Indiana.
Let the best person win. I would be happy to vote for Obama should he put it away.
If moneyed fat cats like investment banker Alan Patricof and friends wrote a letter for my candidate like the one they wrote to Speaker Pelosi for Sen. Clinton, I'd be embarassed and have no words to defend it. I just wouldn't. As simple as that.
Pelosi should have kept her trap shut. Now she loses credibility as an objective arbiter and the Clinton supporters have every right to cry foul. The stupid DNC leadership put together a primary that cannot pick a clear winner by their own rules. Now they want to change the rules afterwards when it is clear that Super Delegates can vote any way they wish according to the RULES. The DNC cannot have it both ways.
Therefore, they disenfranchise MI and FL for violating the rules, yet they want to change their same rules when it advantages their obvious bias. What a mess and so far the leaders are unlikely to demonstrate the objectivity required to consider the primary legitimate.
Nice work by the REAL establishment, Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, Brazile, Kennedy, Hart, Bradley, etc. They have fooled all the new progressive voters into thinking they are the rebels and the outsiders. What a joke! This is the DNC establishment; the same folks that help pull defeat from the jaws of victory in 2000 and 2004.
Wow... I'm not sure which to take first, the convoluted logic ("the real establishment"), the outright falsehood ("encouraging superdelegates to vote for the winner is changing the rules!"), or the misogyny ("kept her trap shut")!
What the heck is wrong with Pelosi saying she thinks Superdelegates should follow the will of the voters? She's not saying they're bound to it. She's not asking to change the rules or eliminate superdelegates. She's acknowledging they can vote any way they want -- and throughout the process, she's been consistent in saying SHE thinks the best way to vote is with the winner of the most pledged delegates.
As a leader of the Democratic party and her role as the head of the convention she is the last person to editorials her view in such a close primary since there will be no clear winner. Her comments are irresponsible and lack both objectivity and leadership.
My comments were mild compared to what would be appropriate, but thanks for the misogyny cheap shot. This is the political correctness and touchy passive aggressive behavior that will put McCain in the Whitehouse.
Cat fight! Catfight! Only room for one queen Bee in Washington. Pelosi can't come right out and say it but she wouold be mortified if Hillary won.
Our representative should keep her trap shut? Huh? Ridiculous!
In her other role in case you do not know, as the head of the convention, she should lkeep her trap shut! Please. The DNC made a mistake everyone knows it. Obama fought to keep MI and FL disenfranchised not supporting the voters and now she wants to forget about the superdelegates as well. Did I say she should keep her trap shut on this one?
She didn't endorse anybody and, last I checked ,she hasn't lost her First Amendment rights, has she? Her OPINION is that the will of the voters s/b the primary test for the Supers to consider, but she hasn't CHANGED the rules, nor has she reccomended doing so. The Supers are still free to vote as they wish. Calm down!
As a leader of the Democratic party and her role as the head of the convention she is the last person to editorialize her view in such a close primary since there will be no clear winner. Her comments are irresponsible and lack both objectivity and leadership.
Forsake democratic principles and usurp the will of the people? Foreshadows a HRC presidency…one owned by the special interests, PAC moneys, and lobbyists to whom her campaign is beholden.
Speaker Pelosi will not be bullied, threatened or bribed.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
