Hillary's Fat Cats vs. The Speaker of the House

A group of twenty megabucks Dem donors to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign sent a letter to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi yesterday. The full text of the letter is below. In effect, they told Pelosi that her stance on superdelegates -- that they should follow the will of the voters -- is wrong. They said superdelegates should do whatever they want, while reminding Pelosi that they had all been BIG donors to Democratic congressional candidates. Does this sound like strong-arming to you? Actually, it sounds more like a full-on threat to me, a Tony Soprano-type, whack-'em-across-the-knees job if they don't listen.

Who do these twenty fat cats think they are? Well, they're friends of Hillary for sure, some of them very good friends by their own admission (Susie Tompkins Buell). And you can bet that Hillary knew this letter was going out. The only thing scarier than Hillary Clinton being president is her being a clueless president, and no one in their right mind would call her clueless. Calculating, maybe, but never clueless.

I like that Barack Obama wants to give our country back to the people, people just like you and me. Make our voices heard. Empower us to speak up, say what we want and then collectively find a way to make that happen. Obama wants EVERYONE'S voice to be heard. Sounds like Hillary and her closes circle of friends want THEIR voices heard to the exclusion of everyone else's.

Here's the full text of the letter:

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.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. 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 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

"I believe 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.'"

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. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.

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. 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.

Sincerely,

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

Comments

...of the people...

The Big Political Machine - the one that Hillary has so much experience with (scary!) - is squarely behind Clinton because she's proven herself to be receptive to their needs. Hell, she and her husband have accepted huge contributions from the Big Players who don't throw around their money unless they expect to get a significant return on their investment.

This is not the kind of experience we want. We want - we need change.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are registering as Dems so they can get Hill nominated for two reasons: she's more likely to maintain the status quo and - more importantly - she's easier to defeat. I can see the ads now: parading an endless list of women Bill has been involved with ending with the question: "if she can't keep her own house in order, would you trust her to know what's going on in the White House?"

Barack has opened his records. He has outlined plans for an open government. Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about? A government "of the people, by the people and for the people"? I'm tired of the Big Political Machine.

Vote Obama!

Cats r Flyfishn Good

Cats r Flyfishn
Good responsel. I especially like the "if she can't keep her own house in order, would you trust her to know what's going on in the White House?" If Hillary Clinton were elected president, it would be four more years of investigations. After all, it was the 7 years of investigations into the Clintons that handed over Congress to the Republicans and Bill's "Monica moments" helped get George W Bush placed in the White House. No, we don't need more of the same. We need empowerment of the people. We need Barack Obama.