Obama campaign responds to top Clinton donor's letter to Pelosi

The Barack Obama campaign has responded to the letter the twenty top Clinton donors sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. According to TPM, Obama spokesperson Bill Burton called the letter from the top Clinton donors "inappropriate" and hoped that the "Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it:

“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.”

And there is another interesting detail coming out of Americablog on this letter. Going back to this paragraph of the Clinton donor letter to Pelosi:

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.

A more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates. Are the top Clinton fund-raisers demanding that all delegates, in general, should exercise their "optional independent actions" when voting for a candidate during the convention--this includes both the super delegates and the pledged delegates? When you vote in a primary or caucus, you vote to select a number of delegates to represent you and the rest of your states' population in selecting a party nominee at the convention. What these Clinton donors are saying is that the pledged delegates should be given their own independent judgment in deciding who to nominate during the convention, perhaps disenfranchising your own vote for your party's candidate. This is an interesting detail to consider.

Update: CNN now has the story up on their Political Ticker website, which also includes a PDF file of the letter.

Second Update: I'm starting to pick up some responses from the Clinton campaign on this Pelosi letter, and they are rather contradictory. According to The Huffington Post, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, "Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the [Barack] Obama campaign." Instead of responding directly to the letter, Singer attacks the Obama campaign for lecturing the Clinton campaign's contribution in building the Democratic Party. Singer does not say anything about the letter that was sent to Pelosi by the top Clinton donors. This is an issue within the Clinton campaign, and has nothing to do with Barack Obama in the first place. And yet, the Clinton campaign is attacking the Obama campaign's response to this Clinton donor letter sent to Pelosi.

Then there is this interesting detail within the Washington Post on the Pelosi letter:

Clinton, in an interview with Time magazine published yesterday, accused the Obama campaign of trying "to shut this race down" and noted that even pledged delegates are not legally bound to support the candidate to whom they are pledged. "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

It is almost like Senator Clinton agrees with her big moneyed donor's assertion that all delegates in general have the right to exercise their own independent judgment. It makes me wonder whether the Clinton campaign will try to solicit support from the pledged Obama delegates in voting for Clinton over Obama. This also makes me wonder whether the Clinton campaign tacitly supports this Pelosi letter, while at the same time trying to ignore, or downplay, the publicity of this letter.

And there are more interesting details within the WaPost story:

Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television and one of the organizers of the letter to Pelosi, said in an interview that there would be "no effect" on contributions to the party among the signers of the letter. "This is just fair play," he said.

Johnson added that he and the others want to make certain the nomination battle is not declared over prematurely. "It's not the role of the leadership to say 'Vote only the way the pledged delegates go,'" he said.

But the letter made it clear that the fundraisers believe their voice should carry real weight with the speaker. Noting their past financial support, they wrote, "We . . . hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters."

In other words, we're just kidding--there is no extortion here! Of course, this statement was made after the Clinton donor letter to Pelosi was made public, with the contained extortion threat. It makes me wonder whether these Clinton fund-raisers may have thought that this letter would remain private within the speaker's office. And now the Clinton backers are starting to backpedal against the public outrage of their demands. Again, this is going to hurt the Clinton campaign. This letter reveals the difference between the big moneyed interests that are donating to the Clinton campaign, verses the grass-roots, small campaign contributions that are being donated by individual Democrats to the Obama campaign. This Pelosi letter by the Clinton money donors really shows a sense of hubris by those same big moneyed interests in demanding that their selection of a Democratic candidate should have a greater weight in the nomination process than the Democratic Party voters. That is the real issue here.