Obama Camp: Donor Pressure "Inappropriate"

In response to news that Clinton donors are using their financial might to pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi into retracting her Obama-favorable comments about superdelegates, Obama's campaign just released this statement:

“This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives."

Comments

Yes it's inappropriate for important players in the party to ask the Democratic leadership to do something. Obama's people are unbelievably arrogant.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 5:39 PM

Yet another intelligent Clinton supporter heard from. I hope you bothered to read the letter that was sent by Clinton supporters to Nancy Pelosi - oops, forgot about the blinders.

Posted by Dani girl | March 26, 2008 5:46 PM

Yes I did, thanks.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 5:49 PM

Inappropriate is a vast understatement. To paraphrase:

Senator Pelosi:
You have suggested that superdelegates should not overturn the choice of the voters. This is the same as telling all the voters in states yet to come that they do not matter. Instead, we want them to vote. Then we want you to overturn their votes. Or else.
Sincerely,
20 wealthy people who can't believe we haven't managed to buy a presidency yet

Posted by Deborah | March 26, 2008 5:49 PM

What has he done in the Senate that he is now going to do in the House?

Posted by portia | March 26, 2008 5:50 PM

If I had to define arrogance for the sake of this story, then I would say that putting the interests of self over the party (and the country) is pretty damn arrogant. Threatening to withdraw financial support from the DCCC if someone doesn't follow the political script that is best for you? Really?

I hope Clinton-supporting Senator Cantwell (who recently said something similar to Pelosi's remarks) isn't subject to the same tactics.

Posted by Joe | March 26, 2008 5:52 PM

Deborah:

The WILL of the voters includes the votes of Florida and Michigan, since the votes cast in those primaries reflected their intent for Clinton to be the nominee. Pledged delegates and arcane DNC rules do not equal the "will of the voters."

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 5:55 PM

OR :

Dear Ms. Pelosi:

We represent the richest dems in America. If you do not come around and STFU we will stop giving you and yours money.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

sincerely etc

Posted by heather | March 26, 2008 5:59 PM

So who appointed the New Age Left Coast La La Lander, Queen of the Ball? The "Democratic Party" should be celebrating "Democracy", should it not?

Are the important decisions to be made, (arbitrarily), by the Bitch Goddess, freshly Rebuilt In A Lab, along with Short Fat Sputterin' Fudd, the Former Mayor of Vermont, who is eye level to her synthetic tits, and hasn't had an original thought in his life?

Lord help us all.

Posted by robert ethan | March 26, 2008 6:00 PM

Well technically no vote would ever count, since you can't measure the "will of the voters" without 100% voter turnout.

On the other hand, we could play within the stated rules.

I don't get why Ickles doesn't get called on his vote more. Obama gets flak for some shadowy movements nobody can source that kill revotes, but Ickles actually DID kill their delegates, in a sourced vote at the DNC.

Posted by Kildy | March 26, 2008 6:03 PM

Joe:

How about threatening to launch primary challengers against black politicians with the audacity not to support a black candidate for president?

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 6:08 PM

Tim K
"Pledged delegates ... do not equal the "will of the voters."

Spoken like a true Clinton-supporter.

I don't claim that MI and FL are not a mess. There appears to be no good solution that will please everyone, or even half the people involved. "People involved" including all the states who managed to hold primaries without the drama. Their 'elections' had low turnout in a year that every other state saw very high turnout. To claim those votes are representative of the will of the voters, but the votes in every other state are not, is ridiculous. Property Tax Referendum soundly defeated all the democratic candidates combined; perhaps we should seat FL's delegation in its name.

Posted by Deborah | March 26, 2008 6:14 PM

Tim K.,
Withdrawing money from the DCCC means that Dems will not have money when fighting against the GOP, that is bad for the party.

Instituting primary challenges means providing incumbent Democrats with an opponent for the Democratic nomination (not for the general election).

I have no problem with Democratic interest groups challenging incumbents with which they disagree in primaries. I have a very big problem with harming Democrats in the actual race against the GOP. This is a pretty significant distinction, no?

Posted by Joe | March 26, 2008 6:16 PM

Tim K., you're so funny! Asking the leadership to do something? No, they're asking Pelosi NOT to do something, i.e., speak her mind and do what the Clinton campaign has said all along that the "automatic delegates" (I crack myself up!) have every right to do -- make up their own minds.

I honestly don't know why I bother reading your comments. You say you're from Canada and you say we're silly to base our decisions on candidates on issues like truthfulness, character, etc., because that's not the way you do it in Canada. Well, "First Among Equals" is a lot different than the American President, which constitutes an entire branch of our government. You see, we can't just toss out our leaders at any time if we don't like what they're doing. We can't give a vote of "no confidence." If we elect a liar and/or a lunatic to the presidency, we're stuck with that person for four long years unless they do something so terribly illegal that they can be impeached. It's a lot different here. So truthfulness and good character are important, at least to some of us. And Hillary Clinton (NOT named after Sir Edmund Hillary, after all) doesn't have those traits. So I hope we're not stuck with her for four years. But if you want to transport her to Canada and elect her as First Among Equals, please, please, have at it. We're getting rather tired of her here.

Posted by Amy | March 26, 2008 6:20 PM

Joe:

And it isn't good for the party to go on primary challenge witch-hunts for either ideological purity or support of Obama. The primary challenge against Joe Lieberman turned out to be a big mistake. Millions of dollars were wasted that could have been spent in close congressional races and the Democrats ended up losing a seat and Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain for president. The netroots and the activist Left of the party - what you call euphemistically the "Democratic interest groups" - are short-sighted and continuously make foolish strategic blunders like the Petraeus-Betray Us letter in the NYT.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 6:24 PM

The real significance of the Clinton donor letter is it shows that the Clinton campaign is very, very desperate. Asking 20 super-donors to send an implicit threat (of cutting of DCCC $$) to the Speaker of the House and making it public is exceedingly dumb. It's more likely to backfire than to have the effect they intend. This is a sign of a campaign on life support.

Posted by Chester | March 26, 2008 6:27 PM

Amy:

Yes the "we" you refer to (the McGovernite Left) has never been overly-thrilled with Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 6:28 PM

Ahh, but Tim K., you have me all wrong. I'm not old enough to be a McGovernite, but I AM old enough to have campaigned and voted for Bill Clinton twice, which I did gladly. I defended him to the hilt against that "vast right wing conspiracy" -- until I learned that he had lied to me and everyone else with that "I did not have sex with that woman" BS. That's when he lost me. I really thought he was telling the truth and that he'd been framed. Now I can't stand the sight of him.

And Hillary lost me by being just like him. Truly, they're made for one another. They don't give a rat's ass about this country, except to the extent that it can give them the power they crave. I'm a Democrat who cares about my party. It's the Clintons' blatant disregard for the health of the party and the good of the country that I can't abide. So they had me, but they lost me with their selfishness.

Posted by Amy | March 26, 2008 6:35 PM

Amy:

You're going to be pretty disillusioned if Obama becomes president.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 6:39 PM

Tim K. the only arrogance I see is the arrogance coming out of the Clinton camp on a daily basis! Additionally, these aren't important players in the DNC that sent the letter, they are Clinton Donors. So, I guess you'd be happy with a government that is bought and sold by an elite group of people? Didn't we just have that with "W"? Marc, please post the entire letter to the Speaker as it's posted at Dailykos so that people can see the names of these marvelous individuals. And in a follow up, I would ask that everyone send a copy of this letter to the Speaker on behalf of the people in this country without money, power and influence. Thanks to the blogger at Dailykos for putting it together.

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. But what precisely will those votes mean if they are simply overturned by the will of Democratic super-delegates?

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. Indeed, given that millions of Americans have voted for the candidate of their choice, volunteered untold hours of their time, and donated hitherto unimaginable amounts of small donor contributions, we agree wholeheartedly that the eventual Democratic nominee for President needs to secure at least a simple majority of the pledged delegates. To designate a nominee with a minority of such votes - a nomination where super-delegates overturn the manifest will of primary voters - would make a mockery of the values upon which the Democratic Party claims to rest.

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. And we too believe that super-delegates have such an obligation. However, as you and we know, this obligation is not a legal one, not one spelled out in our rules or charters, but one that is moral and ethical in character. We recognize and we stipulate that super-delegates can and do exercise their own judgment in regard to the nomination process, but as they make these difficult decisions, we feel that we would be remiss if we didn't remind them what was at stake. We do not seek to compel them to vote in a particular way, but we will appeal to their reason and their good sense, and we will hope they make a choice that is consistent with the results of of the pledged delegate process.

Thus we welcome your statement that you also believe that "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.’" We can say this because we trust them not to make a disastrous choice that would be both undemocratic and un-Democratic, a choice that would resound in the most damaging ways among the masses of new voters and enthusiastic supporters that our Party has recently attracted. We trust them to cast their votes in a way that strengthens the Democratic brand, and not in a direction that could result only in Party fracture and Party self -destruction

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. But above all else, we are convinced that this very individual decision must be informed by the values, ideals and beliefs that make our Party great. Among these, and perhaps above all others, is a never forgotten respect for the stated will of Democratic voters and individual members as expressed in the agreed-upon processes of the primary system. So as super-delegates make their individual choices, and hopefully soon, we pray that they will simultaneously remember (and respect) the choices already made by millions of the their fellow citizens – and fellow Democrats.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC, and we will continue to be so. But we also hope that you will remain unswayed by the bluster (and barely concealed financial threats) made by a group of once very powerful Party donors. Their words may once have carried well warranted weight for a Party utterly dependent on a system large donors. Such people may sincerely feel they are acting in the interest of the Party, and may believe that they still have the power to bring the Party leadership to heel. In other words, they may still think they own the Democratic Party – Our Democratic Party. But speaking for over one million small donors for Obama that have helped raise over $140,000,000 for his campaign, I say this party belongs once again to all of us. And if you've got our back, we've damn well got yours.

Sincerely,
Millions of Very Important Small Donors for Obama

Posted by Ezzy | March 26, 2008 6:41 PM

Posted by Deborah | March 26, 2008 5:49 PM

Inappropriate is a vast understatement. To paraphrase:
Senator Pelosi:

You have just proven you’re a complete total twit! Nancy Polosi’s Proper title is Madam Speaker… She’s the Speaker of the US House of Representatives not a member of the US Senate!

Posted by Deborah | March 26, 2008 5:49 PM

You have suggested that superdelegates should not overturn the choice of the voters. This is the same as telling all the voters in states yet to come that they do not matter. Instead, we want them to vote. Then we want you to overturn their votes. Or else. Sincerely, 20 wealthy people who can't believe we haven't managed to buy a presidency yet

Congratulations it took you this long to figure that out. This has been the case since the sixth of February.

Posted by SC Rose | March 26, 2008 6:43 PM

How about threatening to launch primary challengers against black politicians with the audacity not to support a black candidate for president? --Tim K

Every. Single. Damn. Politician. Of. Any. Color. Or. Party. Can face a damn primary challenge. It'll be good for them. This notion that an office, once won, should belong to the holder no matter how they perform is stupid. I hope we can usher it out with the Clintons. Not representing your voters? They may toss you out.

And the threat has teeth because is not that "they're black," it's that "their district went 70-80% for the guy they won't endorse." Their citizens concluding that this guy isn't representing them any more is quite reasonable.

Posted by Deborah | March 26, 2008 6:46 PM

Wow, that statement will really stop the Clintons from bullying the superdelegates.

Posted by Naveen | March 26, 2008 6:49 PM

Tell these blackmailing fundraisers we don't need their stinking money. Obama can raise more than these weasels ever imagined and he doesn't need the help of the billionaire club. Then Obama will raise their taxes that they have conveniently avoided paying for the last 8 years.

Laughs on the billionaire club!!!

Posted by RiverRed | March 26, 2008 6:49 PM

The Clinton Camp Response to the letter "Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton." Now that's arrogance if I've ever heard it...

Phil Singer: “Senator Clinton has been vocal in stating that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who’d be best for party and country. The nominating process should be completed so that every vote, including those in Michigan and Florida, gets counted.”

“Regarding the Obama attack: Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign.”

Posted by Ezzy | March 26, 2008 6:51 PM

Deborah:

First of all, you need to relax.

Second, primary challenges rarely succeed, tend to force the incumbent to pander to the party base, waste money that could be spent in the general election, and therefore are almost always counter-productive.

Third, so I guess you support primary challenges against John Kerry and Ted Kennedy for overruling the Democrats of Massachusetts?

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 6:56 PM

Tim K.,
So you are pro-Lieberman and pro-Clinton, it's starting to make much more sense now.

Further, I didn't call the netroots "the Democratic interest groups", I was saying that any Democratic interest group that has a significant problem with the incumbent would have my blessing for challenging the incumbent. I think that the overwhelming structural advantages held by incumbents is a real problem, as it allows them to distance themselves from the interests of their constituents.

By the way, if you are worried about Democrats wasting millions of dollars to weaken the party in November (and by the way, Clinton's odds of winning at this moment are no higher than Lamont's were last time), I'm not sure if you're supporting the right candidate at this particular moment in time.

Posted by Joe | March 26, 2008 6:59 PM

Joe:

I'm not pro-Lieberman. What I said it turned out not to be strategically wise to defeat him in the primary. If you can't distinguish between those two positions that's your own problem.

Often it is not the incumbent's constituents that are being distanced from, it is the wishes of party activists and the party base. Primary challenges from the far Left and Right of the parties has been one of the contributing factors to polarization in the United States, along with partisan redistricting.

Was Ted Kennedy hurting the party when he stayed in the 1980 races even when his odds of winning her nearly impossible? Or was he attempting to save the party from re-nominating a weak candidate?

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 7:07 PM

To Tim K,

Allegly you are Canadian: that makes me sick to be living in the same country with someone as blind as you. We have have the chance here to have news source without American corporate bias (Hello Fox!) and you still can't detach from your Clinton groupie dance.

This is pathetic.

Although I do not want to see another four years of Republican stupidity, I would be happy to see Clinton nominee: Just to see her ass whooped so bad to the point there would be no skin to sit on.

Candidate like Obama only comes around once every 2-3 generations. Americans have a chance to change the direction of their country and renew their face to the rest of the world. Hillary will never ever in 20 lifetimes be able to do that. Rarely I have seen such a self-centered ego running as a candidate. All she ever breaths is greed. Pure greed and ambition. She does not give a d... about the Democratic party and the hopes of the Democratic voters.

Michel

PS: By the way, Democratic party decision to challenge Lieberman was the best ever they did in a long time. See where he is now? That mister DoubleFace. I still can't believe Gore had him on his ticket. Such an unwise decision...

Posted by Michel B | March 26, 2008 8:21 PM

http://www.actblue.com/page/dear_speaker/

Posted by Zach | March 26, 2008 8:42 PM

The WILL of the voters includes the votes of Florida and Michigan, since the votes cast in those primaries reflected their intent for Clinton to be the nominee.

"Intent" was an interesting word choice here. In Michigan a chunk of voters who voted for HRC "intended" to vote for another candidate. And a chunk of voters who "intended" to vote in the Florida primary stayed home because of the primary null effect.

Posted by AKBY | March 26, 2008 9:16 PM

Tim K.
In answer to your question about Ted Kennedy running against Jimmy Carter: Kennedy's run significantly lessened the chances of Carter being relected. Kennedy's supporters didn't want to rid themselves of a weak candidate, but (in my view) wanted a return to their days of glory and were intolerant of being on the sidelines. I hope that could he reconsider that 1980 choice and the results of the Reagan years, Kennedy might now choose differently. By contrast, I think that Hillary Clinton would inevitably choose to weaken the Democratic party if strengthening it meant that she would have to surrender even the remotest possibility of personal advantage.

I had not known that about her, but now I do.

I agree with you that we Democrats need to act and think strategically, and I generally like the tone of your responses. Running opposition candidates against elected Democrats who are otherwise acceptable because they didn't support your primary choice is a waste of energy and resources and reflects badly on the Democratic party, revealing us as an undisciplined lot, committed to emotional responses rather than to electing persons who can support shared primary goals.

As for Joe Lieberman: He didn't meet the criterion of "otherwise acceptable" and though his primary defeat didn't turn out as well as might have been reasonably expected,at least Bush didn't have Lieberman to parade around as his Pet Democrat in support of his malicious policies; as long as Lieberman caucuses with the Democras--even though he holds Senate Dems hostage--that's worth something.

Posted by Barbara | March 26, 2008 11:19 PM

Isn't irony beautiful? Let's put this together: Hillary, the candidate for the shift worker- those too busy to caucus, the lost souls of NAFTA. Ah, the poor, the wretched!

And then, for all the world to see, smack in the middle of the List of the Aggrieved lies Madame Rothschild. Go Hillary: fighting the good fight for those who really need democrats.

In the end, Hillary will pull a Tonya so a Rothschild can sleep in peace. Now that's a thing of beauty.

She may not deserve the nomination, but she clearly deserves an Oscar.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | March 27, 2008 12:17 AM

I'd revote Michigan if I could. On a cold, cold winter day, 40% of Michigan voters drove out to their polling locations to vote "Uncommitted" instead of "Hillary Clinton."

/Obamabot

Posted by 55 | March 27, 2008 1:24 AM

Barbara:

I appreciate the respectful tone of your response. I think Carter would have lost the election either way, but it may well have been a closer result.

Ideally I would prefer to see Clinton as the nominee, but now it is becoming clear that both candidates are becoming damaged goods. Some here would have you believe that Clinton was always unelectable, but that's not true. The recent attacks on her character by the Obama campaign are driving up her negatives even further. Obama has his own serious problems though.

I'd be more than happy to discuss possible scenarios under which this contest could be brought to a conclusion with Obama has the (deeply flawed) nominee. But if the tenor of the comments is simply going to be "Clinton should go drop off a bridge" then I'll continue to defend her here and keep more balanced, constructive comments to myself.

Candidate like Obama only comes around once every 2-3 generations. Americans have a chance to change the direction of their country and renew their face to the rest of the world.

Michael B:

That's hyperbole.

Posted by Tim K | March 27, 2008 1:24 AM

"The recent attacks on her character by the Obama campaign are driving up her negatives even further. Obama has his own serious problems though."

She's driven herself into the ditch. When you sound like somebody's crazy uncle who was never in the war telling war stories, then you have problems. She's just pissing people off left and right. That's her own damn fault. Never mind that polls show her to be the most polarizing figure in this election, we should all be worried that the 60% of Americans who say he can bring Americans together is lower than before. Considering you can't even vote in this election and you obviously don't know how American electoral behavior works (you don't seem to understand that people vote on broad, abstract themes instead of specific policy proposals), who cares what you think? All you do is throw up strawmen of the Democratic left as a bunch of Chavez-lovers who hate America (just about the only professed Chavez-lover on these boards is Petey, who backs Clinton), which just suggests either you're a right-wing troll or you live on a different planet where confusing sniper fire for a child reading a poem doesn't make one a crazy person.

Also, the idea that the will of any voters is expressed in a ballot with only one candidate is a sentiment worthy of Pravda. If Brezhnev was still around, he would be proud. The fact that you make this argument with a straight face shows you aren't to be taken seriously.

The GOP had primary challengers against RINO's all of the time. It increases party discipline, which is something that the Democrats could use to fight the constant "Dems in disarray" meme.

Posted by Reality Man | March 27, 2008 9:34 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

1. Read the polls more carefully, Clinton fans of every nationality. Hillary Clinton entered the race with higher negatives than any politician in the Democratic Party. They have gotten higher recently because the honestly undecideds report that they are increasingly alienated by the tone and tactics of Clinton's campaign, its staff and its surrogates.

2. I'm old enough to remember George McGovern well. I walked away from personal political involvement for nearly 40 years because of what I saw at that convention. Obama has brought me back into the fold.

3. Ted Kennedy's race against Carter ushered in the devastating eras of Reagan and his successors. The only reason for that race was Kennedy's ego and his sense of entitlement... just as those are two of the fundamental reasons for Hillary's campaign. (The third is the obscene amount of money Bill has made since leaving office- see next item).

4. This letter to Speaker Pelosi is the essence of the crisis in our democracy. Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush policies have increasingly divided us into a society of very rich and very poor with a cushion class of debilitated debtors in between. It is never sufficient for the rich and super rich simply to have and enjoy their own, they also want what litte the rest of us share... and one Democratic candidate is going to be happy to deliver that to them on a platinum platter as long as her place at their table is assured.

Posted by Larry McD | March 27, 2008 10:02 AM

Reality Man:

If there is anything social science research into electoral behavior has demonstrated is that there is no one factor "people vote on." Not even in US elections, which are not wholly unique from democratic processes in other jurisdictions. We actually do not know why people vote as they do. Some people seem to vote based on single-issue or on a narrow set of issues (so-called "values voters" or gun enthusiasts), some care about the state of the economy and their own personal economic situation (the old "are you better off today..." question), some vote based on the personal likability of the candidate from their perspective, some want the most intelligent, the most liberal, the most conservative, the most moderate, and a few even vote for who they think is best looking. There is no one reason why people vote as they do. Certainly some vote based on abstract themes and ideas, but that's impossible to quantify. According to exit polls in these Democratic primaries the majority of voters in most contests said "bringing change" was the most important factor in their vote. That's about the most abstract theme one could imagine, which just about anybody could say they are for, but still a significant minority opted for "experience." So qualifications (real or perceived) still matter to some voters. So, contrarily to any attempts to trivialize US voting behavior, it's definitely a complicated question.

Larry McD:

Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush policies have increasingly divided us into a society of very rich and very poor with a cushion class of debilitated debtors in between. It is never sufficient for the rich and super rich simply to have and enjoy their own, they also want what litte (sic) the rest of us share...

You paint an extremely gloomy, pessimistic and one-sided picture of the last 25 years of American history.

According to you I guess the Democratic slogan should be:

IT'S MIDNIGHT IN AMERICA!

Posted by Tim K | March 27, 2008 10:42 AM