Dem Oligarch Overlords Threaten Nancy Pelosi

[USRufnex]

March 26, 2008,  3:20 pm
Clinton Donors Ask Pelosi to Back Off
By Jeff Zeleny

Twenty-one top contributors to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign sent a letter today to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, essentially asking her to back off and keep out of the superdelegate fight.

"This dynamic primary season is not at an end," the donors wrote in the letter. "Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes."

The letter is the latest sign of a deepening rift inside the Democratic Party. The Clinton boosters were responding to comments Ms. Pelosi made 10 days ago on ABC News' "This Week," when she suggested it would be dangerous for the party if the superdelegates tried to take away the nomination from a candidate who had won the most pledged delegates. (And as of now, that is Senator Barack Obama.)

The letter carries an ominous tone, which stops just short of delivering a threat. The donors remind Ms. Pelosi that they are "strong supporters" of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. (A quick check, at least, shows that at least some of letter-signers have not given to the D.C.C.C.)

"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," the letter stated.

We'll no doubt be hearing more soon from the Speaker. Until then, here is a copy of the letter:

March 26, 2008
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 Forester de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay and Tracy Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner

[FOTD]

Pritzker? Give me a break. This list must be a bunch of losers. Pritzker? Hell, one of his relatives, no doubt his ouster, runs Obama's finance cmtee. The Clintonites are so old hack.
Nancy's district in Calif. supports Obama 3 to 1.

[USRufnex]

March 27, 2008,  5:23 pm
Pelosi Letter Writers Are Mega-Million $ Donors
By Kate Phillips

This shouldn't surprise anyone who reviewed the names on that oh-so-close-to-a-threat letter sent by the mega-donors who were asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to change her tune a bit on the role of superdelegates weighing in on the Democratic nomination.

But the Center for Responsive Politics has culled through the contributions of those who signed the missive, using data filed with the Federal Election Commission. The tally? Nearly $23.6 million that the 20 signers (including spouses) had contributed since 1999.

That many are big donors to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't news. Nor is it news that some are huge givers to Democrats, year after year. And while they didn't mention their millions in the coffers in the letter to Mrs. Pelosi, the C.R.P. cuts out this quote from the letter, emphasis on the adjective "enthusiastic":

"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."

As our colleague Jeff Zeleny wrote on the Caucus yesterday and in today's paper, it's one of the first times that the harsh divide between the camps of Senators Clinton and Senator Barack Obama has spilled over into jeopardizing the fund-raising efforts of Democrats down-ballot.

(Although various Democrats across the country — including those raising funds for the convention in Denver — have worried that this protracted primary race is siphoning off dollars from other needy pockets. And yes, even as the heightened prolonged interest drives up enrollment voter rates for the Democrats. Leaving us to ask, voters vs. dollars?)

The C.R.P.'s Lindsay Renick Mayer highlights the ways in which the distribution of that $23.6 million can't help but weigh on Mrs. Pelosi's mind, or that of other leading Democrats who return to these designer wallets time over time:

Every signer of the letter has contributed to the Democratic Party in every election cycle since at least 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, and there's no way to know how many more millions they've helped raise from others, or bundled, to support the party.

The authors clearly favor Clinton in the presidential race, and many of them serve as bundlers for her campaign. Clinton has collected $315,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns from these major donors and their spouses over the last 10 years, or $554,000 including contributions to HILLPAC, her political action committee.

By comparison, Barack Obama has collected $34,700 from these donors for his Senate and presidential campaigns, plus $17,500 to his PAC, Hope Fund. Eleven of those listed on the letter to Pelosi have given to Obama over the years, although only one couple has given to his presidential account in the 2008 cycle.
The donors also pointed out to Pelosi that they have been strong supporters of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party apparatus that supports the Democratic members she leads in the House of Representatives. Nearly $3 million of the $23.6 million that the authors of the letter have given to Democrats has gone to the DCCC.

In addition to the money they've given to candidates, parties and other Democratic committees, the donors have contributed about $3 million to 527 committees, the independent issue groups that frequently get involved in elections.

We'd point out that with so many races in flux, (granted the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have outpaced their Republican counterparts in fund-raising), the final fall rush for cash can be quite dire for some races that hadn't been viewed competitively by the leaders. (Some candidates begged the Dems in the late days of the 2006 midterm elections; it will happen again.)

There's no question the donors' letter signaled a warning that could wind up shrinking those last-minute appeals as well as current giving. It also worked to lay down the law as to what these influential party members were willing to stomach.

Signed by such prominent donors as Haim Saban and Steve Rattner, the letter alluded to concerns they had about Mrs. Pelosi's recent remarks on the ways that the superdelegates might weigh in, as Mr. Obama leads in the pledged delegates from the caucuses and primaries that have occurred across the country. The letter stated: "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates 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 thought it might be helpful to see what Mrs. Pelosi actually said in lengthier context when she appeared on ABC's "This Week" on March 16.

George Stephanopoulos: I know you're hoping you're not going to be needed or called upon, but there's a real prospect that there's going to be a split.

You've said the superdelegates should not be dispositive. What does that mean?

Mrs. Pelosi: No, here's what I said. This (inaudible). What I said was, if the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.

G.S.: So if someone wins the pledged delegates and the popular vote, they should be the nominee?

Mrs. Pelosi: Well, again, this works itself out. I don't think all of these things will be black and white. I think everything will be...

G.S.: But that's why you're going to be key. They're going to call on you to resolve this, aren't they?

Mrs. Pelosi: This is going to be over before we go to the convention. This is going to be — pretty soon, somebody will be far enough in front that this will come to an end.

G.S.: If not, are you willing to step in?

Mrs. Pelosi: Well, I believe that this will be over, one way or another.

G.S.: Well, if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?

Mrs. Pelosi: But it's a delegate race. In other words, if one wins the Electoral College and one wins the popular vote, guess who's president of the United States? The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee. Most likely, the scenario you describe will not happen.

No stranger to political dominoes, Mrs. Pelosi's staff shot its own missive back last night (adding) in response to the donors' letter:

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.

And meanwhile, while we were writing this, MoveOn.org and OpenLeft.com joined together in a protest against the donors' veiled threat to Mrs. Pelosi. MoveOn's release to its membership, imploring them to fight and donate says:

It's the worst kind of insider politics — billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters.
But when we all pool our resources, together we're stronger than the fat cats. So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute.

[cannon_fodder]

The democrats don't have oligarch overlords, nor a small number of super wealthy individuals who have more power than everyone else. All democrats are union laborers, farmers, or single mothers struggling to survive.  The hundreds of millions of dollars they raise each year comes from internet donations from average Joes.

Republicans, on the other hand, are dominated by an elite clique or super rich known as the pentamorate who meet every year in Colorado at a super secret resort know as, the Meadows.  Their members include the Queen, the Vatican, Oil Executives, Arms Manufacturers, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up.

Well that and both major parties are funded largely by public money collected from everyone and given by Congress to their respective parties to exclude other voices from the political process.

[Conan71]

Lest anyone should doubt my words that Hillary is in this till at least the convention.