Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Fat Cats Hiss at Pelosi

March 26, 2008 10:10 PM

Were a bunch of Clinton donors threatening to withhold contributions to the Democratic House campaign committee if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., doesn't change her position on superdelegates?

Not directly, no.

But a brouhaha has erupted over recent comments made by Pelosi on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", when Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic National Convention, seemed to give a boost to the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."

Taking umbrage, a list of big Democratic donors who support the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have written a letter to Pelosi (subsequently released to the press) pointing out that "Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes" and arguing "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…"

Then the donors -- 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 -- reminded Pelosi that they have given generously to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which helps fund Democratic House races.

"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. 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."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly in a statement said, "Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes."

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, noting the donors' reminder to Pelosi of their largesse, said, "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."

-- jpt

March 26, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | Share | User Comments (233)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

All the more reason to vote for Mccain. The dems will get more done in congress with him as the president.

Posted by: Matt | Mar 27, 2008 11:46:22 AM

Obama Zombies?

Why you snarky Hillarious Hairy blighter.

They must have a minnion of you, paid or otherwise, name-callers lined up to swamp the Internet with your hilarious blather.

Posted by: William | Mar 27, 2008 11:40:10 AM

Does America really want someone prone to hallucinations in the WH? Reviewing Hillary's methodical playing of the "Race card", and "The Perpetual Victim" against Obama; her inability to control her own campaign finances; and, her recent commentary on: Iraq; Pakistan; Energy Policy; her stated intention to confiscate the profits of American energy companies; the need for her to control the 14 Trillion $ American Economy from her White House Politburo, since she has declared the free-market to be a failure (this from a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" and Bimbo Containment Chief for Bill's White House Brothel); her Marxist statement in San Francisco: "We're going to have to take more from you, and give it to others for the common good."; Illegal Immigration; Taxes; Infanticide; Massive new Government spending; Multi million $ Senate earmarks for supporters of Hillary's Presidential campaign; Garnishing of your wages to fund her coveted Socialized medicine program; a fanatical advocate of confiscating all civilian handguns; and, the Clinton's history of emasculating the military, verifies that this grievously flawed woman would be the female version of the Jimmy Carter debacle that gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini who ushered in rampant Islamic radicalism; block-long lines at our gasoline stations; a severely hollow military; and, a record Misery Index. Only much worse. Considering all of Hillary's recent gaffes, e.g. "I voted FOR IT (referring to the Bankruptcy Bill); but, I was glad to see that it didn't pass."; her hallucinations over "Landing under intense sniper fire in Bosnia."; misrepresentations on NAFTA; or, her fantasized role in the Irish Peace Process; and, her increasingly frequent crying jags, one has to wonder if excessive use of Botox has affected her mental stability. It's no wonder that her campaign staff is shielding her from reporter and audience unscripted questions. The prospect of Madam Hillary as President; in a word: TERRIFYING. Greg N

Posted by: Greg Neubeck | Mar 27, 2008 11:35:04 AM

May we see what's in the Clinton Tax Returns?

Pray tell us where the source of the$5,000,000 campaign!

How about opening the books for the American people to see who donated to the Clinton "Fort Knox" Library in Arkansas.

Why is our once esteemed ex-president taking graft from the oil-rich Muslims?

Pray tell us why is it so important for Hillary to become the Democratic nominee when by all indications are that the Republicans will mop the floors with her come the general election.

Seems like they just love being on the inside with the rich and powerful.

Posted by: Nigel | Mar 27, 2008 11:28:09 AM

I'm the last person to defend Nancy Pelosi after we gave the Democrats the message to do something about the BCF, only to be deflated by her "off the table" remark. However, in this primary battle between two hopefuls, she's indicating what everyone already figured out, that the party leaders just could not afford to overturn the rules without serious consequences to the party.

So Hillary can contort and transfigure her mind in her conniptions on how she can possibly get a favorable outcome to something that is already over, all she likes, provided it does no permanent harm to the Democratic party. But we have reached a point in this character assasination of Barack Obama that may render him impotent, come the general election. The leaders of this party will be viewed as weak, at minimum, and in league with the forces of fascism, at worst, if they allow Hillary and Bill Clinton to divide and destroy the Democratic party as they descend into a death spiral that will destroy the Clinton brand.

Posted by: William | Mar 27, 2008 11:14:51 AM

Mrs. Polosi`s remarks should remind everyone of the socialist/communist tendencies of entire Deomocrat Party

Posted by: Dave | Mar 27, 2008 10:56:18 AM

Tax Returns?

None of your business, after all I'm the commander-in-chief and I can do whatever I want to, I am the law.

Chelsea gave a questioner a similar retort when asked an impertinent question.

Seems like the chip not flying far from the block.

Chelsea might yet best her mother, by actually running for and winning the Republican nomination not too far down the road.

Posted by: Granville | Mar 27, 2008 10:53:54 AM

Pelosi NEVER said the super-delegates cannot vote as they wish; she knows the rules. She simply said if they go against the will of the voting public it will harm the Democratic party.

She is right; if they go against the will of the voting public (whether it's Clinton or Obama), it will harm the Democratic party.

Posted by: nandssmith | Mar 27, 2008 10:53:31 AM

How about some truth Hillary!

How about laying off the emotinal roller coaster ride you're giving us Democrats?

How about returning the cash you've collected from the pre-selling of the White House influence you and hubby had hoped to peddle?

How about them tax return apples??

Let's be relevant and stop yakking about Obama's sins of association, let's see what you're covering up by releasing the unredated papers of the White House years. Let's see what's in the Arkansas history whilst you were in Little Rock.

Posted by: Joe | Mar 27, 2008 10:43:12 AM

Mercy mercy me. What is wrong with Pelosi, Dean and Reid? Are they trying to give our country away? I'm just full of questions today. Are all of you so afraid that Hillary can run the country in a manner to restore prosperity and safety that you will hold your resentment for her and sell our nation short? Did she lick the red off your candy at some point and time? If so, ask yourself how mature am I. Do you think you can contol Obama easier? What if, just what if he is part of Louis Farakan, Tony R., Jeremiah Wright and whoever else clan. Little scarrie for me. Don't forget Kerrie and Kennedy. The only thing amusing about all of this is they will have to cast their vote for Hillary. Oh my!!

Posted by: C Good | Mar 27, 2008 10:35:43 AM

Pelosi needs to be very careful on how she uses her power when she speaks. Its likely that she will need to raise money for her future campaigns and be needing the so called "fat cats" to donate to her campaign. Plus if she is not careful, the republicans will take back control of the house and she will lose her prestigious position as Speaker of the House. She and Dean need to figure out what to do about the FL and MI voters as well as ensuring that we have fair contests even though she is already biased.

Posted by: terry | Mar 27, 2008 10:19:33 AM

Callin all Clintonites, Clintonians, and Clintonistas, for heaven's sake stop with the divisive crap already. If in your heart-of-heart you are a Democrat then please plead with your candidate to cease these vicious attacks against the party's front-runner. This protracted effort to destroy Barack Obama's standing in the eyes of the American people is back-firing on Hillary, in particular, and the Clinton legacy overall. Why would a Democrat praise a Republican rival over a fellow Democrat? My simplistic answer would be that the praiser is a poser, and a Republican shill.

Posted by: Nigel | Mar 27, 2008 10:13:50 AM

massense - go whizz somewhere else.

Like paid assasins they persue their victim.

Karma will have its day.

You sow the wind and inherit a whirlwind.

Posted by: John | Mar 27, 2008 10:05:25 AM

Obama's hands are not clean either -- Obama Camp Tries to Sway Hillary’s Pledged Delagates


----------
If the superdelegates are supposed to vote the will of the people then Gov. Richardson, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy, etc.. will have to change their support for Hillary Clinton.

It just seems that Nancy and Obama want to state the rules when it suits them but not actually have to follow them in all cases. what good are the DNC rules if the superdelegates ignore them anyway? Superdelegates are already overriding the will of the voters--that's the big issue. Obama is encouraging it just as much as Clinton is doing. In fact, Obama may be doing more of it given the link to the article above. it explains how he is converting pledged delegates over to him...wonder what the rules say about that?

Posted by: terry | Mar 27, 2008 9:58:51 AM

More Clinton poor loser tactics...does not matter, Obama will be the nominee and win in Nov.

Posted by: leslie | Mar 27, 2008 9:48:42 AM

"You suggested [in a recent television interview] superdelegates 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," the Clinton backers wrote. "This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party''s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984."

I think Nancy has got this right, for a change, after all isn''t each delegate a superdelegate? What the Clinton campaign has been trying to do all along is to shut his race down & play the race card whenever it is convenient for Hillary - The Great White Hope Myth - that they''ve been playing all along.So sad!

Jusst who are Hillary't major campaign donators. Just where is Hillary's income tax filings for 2007.

It doesn't sing & dance - but MONEY TALKS. So Sad!

Posted by: Great White Myth | Mar 27, 2008 9:44:00 AM

I just donated more money to Barack Obama. If there's one thing that talks loud in this country, it's cash, and guess who raises more of it? The door is closing on Hillary's campaign. If anyone out there truly thinks she still has a chance, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: josh | Mar 27, 2008 9:39:57 AM

I don't believe Kerry and Kennedy will support Hillary due to the fact that Kerry is bitter over the fact that he lost the election to Bush. Kennedy doesn't want Hillary to become president because he knows he can get his bills passed thru Obama. Richardson wants to be a VP that's why he endorsed Obama but I think Obama is going to pick Patrick because he is black. Obama is not fooling me, he is racial like his pastor but does a good job of hiding it from the white people. I cannot understand why the whites would not vote for their own race as the blacks vote for theirs. Do we want a president in the white house whose pastor is a racist against this country. I don't think so. Obama and Michelle love this country? Give me a break. Michelle is as racial as he is.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Mar 27, 2008 9:29:38 AM

Surely this thing would be over were the Clintons and Obama positions reversed. Yet the corporate media persist in the lie that somehow the race is neck-and-neck. The Clintons have pre-sold their influence on the presumption that the walk into the White House was going to be a "cake-walk." Now that little "fairy tale" has turned into a "3 am" nightmare. Their donors expect something for the millions thay've anted-up, and Hillary's refusal to acknowledge that the gig is up provides some measure of return on the investment.

Posted by: Emilio | Mar 27, 2008 9:23:39 AM

What gallup poll are you looking at???

The gallup poll has Obama up by 2 (tie). Last week Hillary was up by 7. SHE HAS LOST THAT LEAD.

Hillary now has a positive rating of 37, down 8 points from 2 weeks ago.

Obama went down 2. 49 from 51 two weeks ago (Rev. Wright controversy didn't hurt him much).

I was reading the New York Post and SDs are really questioning Hillary because of her Bosnia story.

She also has Military people speaking against her.

Seems to me, Hillary has REALLY shot herself in the leg this time.

Posted by: Yes Yes Yes | Mar 27, 2008 9:23:15 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS