And this is where the letter from the Clinton donors comes into play. Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi, chastising her for saying that the super delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count. According to the letter:
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...
Now these twenty top Hillary fund raisers didn't like what Pelosi said during her This Week interview on the super delegates. And they are demanding that Pelosi "clarify" her comments and instead say that the super delegates should make an "independent" choice in the nominating process:
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.
There is also an explicit reference that these top doners contributed heavily to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. Can you say extortion? If Pelosi doesn't give into the demands of these top Hillary donors, will these donors decide to pull their campaign contributions for Democratic congressmen and women? Because that is what this letter is saying.
Now I don't know if the Clinton campaign endorsed this letter that the Hillary donors have sent to Pelosi. But I do believe this letter will cause some serious damage to the Clinton campaign. What this letter represents is the big moneyed interests within the Democratic Party demanding that they have their final say in who will be nominated for the Democratic presidential candidate. And the big moneyed interests within the Democratic Party are aligned with Senator Hillary Clinton. If this story gets played up in the blogs, and perhaps the mainstream media, it could enrage a number of Democratic voters who will see this as an extortion threat--support Hillary or die. There is no way for the Clinton campaign to spin away this letter--especially since it was written by their own big-moneyed supporters.
Here is 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
No comments:
Post a Comment