Someone really needs to put an end to this crap now. Clinton Donors Threaten Pelosi by Paul Hogarth‚ Mar. 27‚ 2008 When Geraldine Ferraro made racist comments about Barack Obama, she added that Obama “shouldn’t antagonize people like me” – because she’s a big fundraiser for Democrats. Like most rich Hillary Clinton donors, Ferraro knows the old game where a small group of millionaires exert power by raising big bucks. And right now, they feel threatened. Yesterday, a group of 20 “Hill-Raisers” chastised Nancy Pelosi for telling super-delegates not to override the will of the voters. They said that they’ve raised a lot of money for Democrats – so the threat was “we own you, so you better let Clinton steal the nomination.” But these people are dinosaurs, and Pelosi shouldn't listen. Because the fundraising rules have changed. On March 16th, House Speaker Pelosi – who has remained neutral in the Clinton-Obama race – made this rather benign statement on ABC News. “If the super-delegates [at the National Convention] overturn what's happened in the elections,” she said, “it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.” That did not please these 20 Clinton supporters, who promptly fired off a letter to Pelosi – calling her words “an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984.” According to these donors, super-delegates should make their “individual decision,” and urged Pelosi to not undermine that “intent.” It’s not like we haven’t heard such delusional talk from the Clinton campaign these days. It is mathematically impossible for her to win among the pledged delegates – so until she acknowledges that the campaign is over, Clinton and her supporters will continue to make such arguments. But the Hill-Raisers took it a step further by threatening Nancy Pelosi with the future of the Democratic Party. “We have been strong supporters of the DCCC [which fundraises for Democrats running for Congress],” they said. “We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates, and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.” It’s easy to see how they’ve expressed their “enthusiasm.” Susie Tompkins Buell of San Francisco is a legendary donor, and a close friend of the Clintons. Her penthouse in Pacific Heights is famous for parties that raise thousands for Democratic candidates. Alan and Susan Patricoff of New York have a mansion in the Hamptons, where they’ve also hosted the Clintons. Beyond their generous philanthropy, some of these donors have sketchy dealings. Chris Korge of Miami was dubbed Hillary Clinton’s Money Man, despite ethical real estate problems. And Steve Rattner’s responsible for managing New York Mayor (and former Republican) Mike Bloomberg’s investment portfolio. J.B. Pritzker’s on the list. His family owns the Hyatt Corporation and also about half of Chicago (most of his relatives, however, are supporting Obama.) In 1998, the young Pritzker made an ill-fated run for Congress – coming in third place after annoying the District with his family fortune. Marc Lasry also signed the letter. He’s the founder of the Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund that currently employs Chelsea Clinton. Some donors who signed the letter are also media moguls who’ve done what they can to tear down Obama. Haim Saban is the CEO of Univision, and his strident pro-Clinton bias has seeped into the influential Latino TV station’s coverage. And who can forget Robert Johnson – the founder of Black Entertainment Television who brought up Obama’s drug use while campaigning for Clinton in South Carolina? Yes, he signed it. In the past, these millionaire donors were “kingmakers” for the Democratic Presidential nomination. One reason why the Establishment has won every contested primary contest is that you had to raise money from these people in order to be viable. Candidates like Hillary Clinton would secure their support early, leaving the insurgent candidate unable to wage a viable campaign after Super Tuesday and change the political dynamic. “It is hard for other candidates,” Hassan Nemazee, a multimillionaire investment banker, told the New York Observer last year about Clinton’s fundraising. Nemazee also signed the letter, and served as finance chair for presidential candidates like John Kerry. “There is just so much oxygen available. There are only so many people out there who know how to do this and are willing to do this.” But the rules changed with the Internet – along with grass-roots anger at George Bush, the Iraq War, and the Democratic Party’s pathetic weakness in fighting back. Now anyone with a credit card and online access can become a contributor. Barack Obama has raised millions of dollars for his Presidential campaign, but 41% of his donors have given less than $200. A majority of Clinton’s donors, however, have given more than $1,000. The Democratic Party doesn’t need these 20 “Hill-Raisers” – and it upsets them that they are no longer relevant. Having played the game for so long, these rich donors are upset that for the first time in years, their anointed candidate could lose. If Clinton doesn’t win the nomination, it would mean no more overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom – and no more power and influence that they’ve enjoyed for decades. While Clinton pursues the Tonya Harding Option of tearing down Obama so that super-delegates find him unacceptable, these donors went to Nancy Pelosi – hoping to find a sympathetic ear. But Pelosi should tell them what Teresa Heinz Kerry once famously told an annoying right-wing reporter: “Shove it.” Because now’s the time to throw these donors overboard, and take back the Party. EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco.
The presidency has not been bought and paid for in about 40 years. Democracy, right? EDIT: I thought about this again - that's amazingly brazen.
I said in another thread that fear of retribution from Clinton Inc. is why the Dem leaders and superdelegates haven't coalesced around Obama even though Hillary's chance of winning is close to zero. Clinton Inc. realizes that if Hillary isn't elected president in November, they lose influence and become irrelevant. These retread power brokers are another reason why I could never vote for her. Half of her corrupt first term would be spent paying back the machine.
Not surprising. More and more political analysts are starting to say Clinton's goal seems to be to make sure the Dem is her or no one. That is, McCain would win so that she could be the frontrunner in 2012. It does fit with her spending more time attacking Obama than promoting herself, while also simultaneously propping up McCain time and again. It also fits with her self-destructive tendencies and her "all about me"-ness.
The superdelegate war is going to be fun to watch. Who do you guys think Kwame Kilpatrick, a democratic superdelegate, will vote for? My money is on Obama.
There's not going to be a superdelegate war. On June 4th, or somewhere in that week, there's going to be a mass movement to Obama. Many of the supers don't want to interfere while there are still primaries out there, but there's no benefit to waiting past the last primary. And every single one of the undecideds that you hear from is basically making the same argument Obama makes (we're not going to overturn the the primaries, etc). The only question left will be whether Hillary concedes or if she insists on trying to flip 100+ superdelegates between June and August.
Pelosi's response: “Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August," Daly said. "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.” Basically, a "go to hell" response.
You mean retread power brokers like Tom Daschle and Edward Kennedy? There are as many of the retread power brokers supporting Obama, possibly more, as are supporting Clinton. At the same time where was the outrage regarding negative remarks by donors when David Geffen (Obama donor) made disparaging remarks about Clinton?
He only gained one more (Dan Lipinski) after Richardson. So now it is 3-2 post speech in favor of Obama. Looks like Hillary won't have a chance now.
This Ms. Pelosi is quite some character. The 3rd in line of current administration for presidency certainly got her some major ego boost. She's been acting as a "ruler" for quite some time during this election. She "ruled out" the possibility of Obama and Clinton on each other's tickets, to national TV reporters, not once, but twice. Since when she gets to decide what running mate any candidate to choose? What's she worried about? Her chance as VP? I guess she knew Clinton won't choose her. This whole superdelegates, delegates, and caucasus thing are a joke, they can't co-exist. But since they exist, they should be independent to each other, especially the superdelegates part. If it doesn't have the power to "overturn" delegates, why the heck you need superdelegates? If the superdelegates are only allowed to vote for the candidate with more delegates, what's the use of this thing? Does it make sense if candidate A have 100 or 50 or 20 more delegates, all 800 superdelegates should be voting candidate A? So all of a sudden, the superdelegates should actually be super-useless-delegates, even 1 more delegate outweighs 800 superdelegates? Speaking of "the will of voters", isn't she from CA? Aren't Kerry and Kennedy from MA? Shouldn't they be following the will of voters? Politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths, what's new?
The article shows why we should take the money out of politics. Is there any other advanced democracy that basically allows this corrupting influence of private money to "buy" their leaders? Obama should take McCain up on his challenge to limit their spending to that provided by public financing. Of course McCain might back off of that if it looks like he can raise more money than Obama. Obama was waffling as it looked like he could raise more private money. If they both agreed, it would be a good first step toward ending this blot on our democracy in which instead of one person one vote it becomes $xx one vote.
The sooner they get rid of the superdeligates the better. real_egal hit on the only real issue here....what's their purpose? I don't see anything unusual about a group of donors asking a prominent democrat to butt-out of the superdeligate discussion. Especially when she doesn't address their purpose, but rather acknowledges their existance and attempts to negate their ability to vote. And I wouldn't put too much weight on the rantings of an on-line self described 'alternative progressive' blog from San Francisco.
She didn't rule it out - she said it wasn't going to happen. Not that *she* wouldn't let it happen, but that it wasn't a realistic scenario. The point of the superdelegates is to overturn the popular vote only in an emergency. For example, suppose Eliot Spitzer had locked up the nomination and then his hooker scandal came out and no one supported him anymore. At that point, the superdelegates are there to take care of that type of problem. And no one is saying the superdelegates CAN'T overturn the vote in this scenario. People have, correctly, said it would destroy the party and so the superdelegates won't do any such thing.
Really? (I ask genuinely). Then why is it so important they commit before the end of June. WHat if Obama has a Spitzeresque moment in July? Have they never pledged support to candidates prior to them wrapping up the nomination before?
Threaten? Good lord, some of you are an absolute riot. If the superdelegates were merely supposed to reflect the delegate count, they wouldn't exist. Pelosi's comments seem inappropriate from a "neutral" party leader, and a few party members drafted a letter saying as much. Can you please elaborate on the use of the term "threaten"?
