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.

Comments

[InformedMisery]

Why shouldn't they go after Nancy Pelosi? She's been a colossal failure as Speaker of the House. The Democrats took back Congress in 2006 on a promise to end to the war in Iraq. Not only have they failed to achieve that, the war has actually escalated on their watch. She has been a terrible Speaker and she should be taken to task.

[nazgul]

They aren't going after her for any of that, though.

They are going after her because Nancy said it would be bad news for the party if superdelegates overturned the will of the voters.

[uffa]

Excuse me, but did you read the letter? Thes patriots aren't taking pelosi to account for the Iraq Qar. They're taking her to task for her comments on superdelegates. Your argument is totally specious and off the point.

[Rule Of Law]

Once again, children--the rules are the rules! No do overs. No whining. No blaming the other guy. You liked the rules going in enough to play by them, and what? Now you don't because you might lose? Well, if that's how it is let's just make all 3 point shots worth 4 or 5 point if your team is behind! Or we could shorten up the field 20 or 30 yards for the guys who need a little help scoring that go ahead touch down. Geez, just because everybody knew the rules at the start of the game doesn't really mean we need to be fair and honest, does it? Because who wants a president who plays by the rules anyway...

[Cathi]

bribe her? I see it as blackmail

[LiberalFL]

I dont think its blackmail. Blackmail implies they have some info about her that she doesn't want public. A bribe is demanding action in return for money.

[kate123]

A little more like extortion, I think.

[AreYouFibbing]

Must be nice that freedom of speech is bandied about this blog and others, but then you are basically saying Clinton should just be quiet. This is a competitive race and these types of things happen frequently. But, I know you certainly would not want to miss an opportunity to take any situation to bash Sen. Clinton.

[MrWinky]

there is a difference between sending her a letter which says, "We disagree with you and think that the superdelegates should keep an open mind and make their nomination based upon the good of the Party," and one which threatens to withhold funds if she doesn't kowtow. Either you support the party, or you don't, but sending such a letter is little more than a threat, and I think this post got it right: You donors are not the only ones in the party.

[TMAN]

I challenge your statement "This is a competitive race....". Your campaign has inserted a set of negative "red herring" wedges into the reality that Obama leads and has lead in all the necessary categories to capture the nomination by legally agreed upon terms, set at the beginning of this process. And he will enlage that lead. I don't feel as if I'm bashing Hillary by pointing out, she, (I should say, they) are bashing the democratic party and by inductive reasoning, America.

Those wedges have allowed the MSM to cherry pick what ever they need to present the campaign as a "horse race", having their own agenda, when in fact it never has been. The voting public is being cajoled and manipulated into authenticating a fiction. Kinda like a video game.

[asher808]

"This is a competitive race" when Sen. Clinton's coffers have the gall to try to order around the heads of the DNC, effectively urging the likes of Dean and Pelosi to ignore the will of the voters, the delegates, and even the superdelegates who have already declared their intent to endorse Obama, but when someone like Littman calls them on it, a Clinton supporter accuses him of Clinton bashing.

Clinton is not being competitive. Competitive is giving it your all, fighting mightily for your cause, and leaving it all on the court. That time has passed. She simply cannot catch up to Obama in the delegate count, and literally everyone but she and her supporters are aware of this. Now, this is a different sort of truth than the pre-Super Tuesday belief that Obama was going to lock it all up, because now, we're dealing with the laws of mathematics. And they are not going to be altered without someone with Hillary's interest at stake resorting to - are you ready? it might sound like bashing - cheating. Bribing. Threatening. Lying. Things which have nothing to do with real competition. Barring resorting to any of these tactics, the game's over.

And to anyone who still likes Hillary after she and Bill have done everything possible to hand this election to McCain when the country can ill-afford to continue down the Conservative road... shame on you.

Now, am I bashing or being competitive?

Or am I just being honest?

[FreedomLoverX]

It would be more competitive if Hillary had a chance of winning! It is NOT competitive. Maybe you think this is a Bully, Manipulate, and Lie your way to the Whitehouse competition!

[langstonhughesfan]

Hillary’s lie about taking sniper-fire isn’t just a wild fish-story in which she exaggerates events. Hillary Rodham Clinton essentially told the world that a foreign government shot at her! Think about it. Really think about the ramifications of that. She’s got everyone thinking of the image of a lone “sniper” hiding in the hills, but in fact, if we peel away the layers of her lie a bit, she basically implicated a foreign government in committing a hostile act toward the United States when that was not true. That’s incredibly HUGE. We were told by the Bush Administration that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he did not. We were told that there was danger headed our way. Is Hillary’s lie about a foreign government any less significant? We’re getting caught up in the use of the word “sniper” and we’re missing the bigger point. The reality is that she claimed we were attacked by a foreign government.

She is a diplomatic nightmare. Her word is not reliable, and that is putting it mildly. Before we send our brave troops in to fight anywhere on this planet, we need to be able to believe the facts presented to us as evidence. We can’t wonder if the facts are in dispute because the person telling us the story has lied to us in the past.

[marignymitch]

Lies, character assassination, Rovian politics. Now extortion from the smoke-filled room.

I'm ready for Gore, Edwards and other Democratic leaders of principle to take a stand for the high road with Obama.

[AnninCA]

The usual approach here. Hillary is evil. Obama floats on a cloud.

UNTIL I start seeing some real talk, then this is just more of the same ole stuff: Obama is entrenched.

His leg about "higher ground" was actually kicked out from under him.

UNTIL there is true acknowledgement........the I suggest the Dem party will not win in the Fall. I further suggest that Pelosi and others better worry about their own re-elections.

The takeover of the Dem party by Move-on.org will fail.

And it's going to fail in just the worst way possible.

[AreYouFibbing]

Ann....I quit Move-on sometime ago. These people have become what they and others like Dkos railed against and now they are them.

[SLone08]

Hillary's not evil. She's a Republican

[transendentilist]

And you sir, are a liar.

[Kingbreaker]

We've got other toys to play with, so we won;t miss yours when you take it home to pout.

Grow up - this isn't about HRC - it's about getting sensible people on the supreme court. That's a lot more likely with an Obama nomination, by any objective standard.

Show us why/how Hillary can win (maybe starting with her own party) with some 'real talk' please, and you might be taken seriously.

[FreedomLoverX]

I agree with you: Hillary is evil. Well put. The part of entrenchment and all of that, though - do you have any REAL FACTS to back that up? Let's here one. No - not a made up one, but a real one. Every stone you have thrown has been completely debunked. Question: Is Hillary a liar? Is Lying for the purpose of taking over the country evil?

[mounthoodliberal]

"I further suggest that Pelosi and others better worry about their own re-elections."

gee Ann...I didn't realize you were one of the 20 big donors....other than the above statement, the rest of your comment didn't make any sense nor was based in any sort of thoughtful reasoning or empirical evidence. try responding to the original article, which is about the 20 donors...what do you think about them throwing their weight around? do you believe that those with lots of money should get more say than those who don't?

[Plank]

Good article. Remember the same clique tried to buy a re-vote in Michigan.
Our votes in MI are not for sale. These clowns think they live in a banana republic.

[antiparanoid]

You should only invest that which you're prepared to lose.

[flyguy14222]

Matt how about looking at the original function of the Super Delegates. They are not to be just another delegate, but be the ones who do what is best for the party. For Pelosi to make up a new definition of them is ludicrous! I don't like the whole SD thing either, we should do away with it. But like Obama always says "you can't change the rules in the middle of the game."

[MrWinky]

Right, and Pelosi (among others) have determined that what would be catastrophic for the party is to overturn the primary results. People have a lot invested in the outcome of the primary, and we are coming off an administration that is in office only because a small group of people decided to steal the election. Doing a reinactment of that, even if by the rules (as was the 2000 theft), would not bring good results. She was expressing her opinion, and the other supers are free to heed it or disregard it, just the same as Richardson or Dodd are free to say they think Obama is the best candidate. Or Hillary for Murtha.

[transendentilist]

Threatened??? Puleeeese.

[MichaelTenery]

When money people send you this kind of letter it is a threat. The threat is simple. Do as I say or I and my money walk or even support your opponent(s). It is what money does. That is why we have so much trouble in our representative republic. It was designed so the leaders would be representatives of the people but it has been corrupted so that leaders are beholden to the money that got them elected. What our leaders represent now is all the special interest who got them here.

This is why Obama and Edwards before were such historic candidate, forget race and gender for a moment. When you voted for either of either them you know where the money came from. It came from us. When they were in office they would be free to represent us, not some PAC. When Hillary was asked if she'd keep taking PAC money she said she would keep on taking it because the special interest represent real Americans too.

That seems to be Hillary's view and why supporting Barack is so simple. It's about the money. If he wins it will be because average American gave him record amounts of money, not because 20 fat cats sat in a room and decided who they'd support this election.

[NABNYC]

Hillary is adopting the Lieberman strategy: betray everyone in order to advance your own agenda. Can't the people of New York impeach her? She ran as a Democrat for Senate, but now she's campaigning for a Republican for president.

I just saw parts of Hillary's interview today with Fox News (owned by her good friend Rupert Murdoch) in which Hillary said that if there is no re-vote in Florida and Michigan, then the people of those states will vote Republican in November. She said she won't back down, she will go straight to the convention, and she will tear the whole thing apart (essentially). She had a kind of crazed look in her eyes, but then she was in the Fox studios so maybe she got some of those bedbugs up her pantsuit.

Can this be stopped? Yes. The remaining uncommitted superdelegates can stop it by immediately coming out for Obama. Send Bill back to the Ozarks, send HIllary back to D.C., and let the rest of us get out and try to win an election come November.

[RedSea]

I got a call from a superdelegate on Team Hillary today. A friend had personally sent me an email inviting me to a fund raiser for Hillary. I told her that it was the only time anyone had approached me about Hillary, despite the fact that over the last eight years I have donated money to lots of Democratic committees, candidates for President, Senator and House of Representatives, and got mail from all of them, including Bill Clinton, but somehow, being such an easy mark, Team Hillary couldn't find me. My friends reported the same experience. My comment was, among many, if that's the kind of campaign she's running, how can she run a country.

The superdelegate who called me, a wealthy fund raiser and power broker in Los Angeles told me in heated terms that superdelegates, the governors, the mayors who are Democrats every day of their life, deserved to have a say, not just the people who call themselves Democrats "once a year" I thought that was the point, we vote to have those people represent us? We voted them into office, they represent us, but they have to vote the will of the people, the people they serve. It's a bad system.

[britethere]

Great Piece Matt. Thank you. It does look like some bigwig $$$$ folks are worried about their quid pro quo Ambassadorships and "favors"

[VosVos]

For a fun read, look at the profiles of the donors who tried the shake down:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/27/912/91904/66/485037

[mounthoodliberal]

thanks for posting this...I was wondering who they were....and AnninCA wasn't on the list...

[Gerald36]

With all due respect, Nancy Pelosi should go back to San Francisco and get a job and a life.
She decided that impeachment of both criminals was 'off-the-table. So far she hasn't done anything for the country and I'm certain she won't.

[MichaelTenery]

On this we can agree. She should not have taken it off the table.