....A new Gallup poll indicates that 28 percent of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama should she not get the nomination. But 19 percent of Obama supporters say they would go for McCain over Clinton. ...
If it wasn't McCain I could see those numbers quickly dwindling come November but I don't think I'm the only democrat who likes & respects McCain & find Obama not so great. ABC.news
....A new Gallup poll indicates that 28 percent of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama should she not get the nomination. But 19 percent of Obama supporters say they would go for McCain over Clinton. ...
If it wasn't McCain I could see those numbers quickly dwindling come November but I don't think I'm the only democrat who likes & respects McCain & find Obama not so great. ABC.news
The funny thing is that during all this Democratic back and forth between Obama and Hillary, McCain seems to be doing a superb job of campaigning against himself!
I don't think, given gaffe after gaffe after gaffe, starting with Al Queda and Iran, then stumbling all over the teleprompter with his economic assesment to giving one of his standard “we’re winning in Iraq…I don’t care what you say” speeches today and then being interrupted by MSNBC with some breaking news of violence from that country.
He's been a disaster every time he's had any light on him these past 2 weeks so I don't think he's as formidable, appealing, and invincible as people make him out to be.
The real worry come the general election will be the 527 groups and the dirty tricks they generally employ. And they certainly don't need Hillary softening up Obama for them.
Every time I think I don't want to write another post about the failed candidacy of Hillary Clinton, some new outrage arises. Last week, Hillary's big donors were trying to buy a new election in Michigan. This week, they're trying to extort Speaker Pelosi.
Keep in mind that Hillary's campaign finished February in the red. You'd think that would be a major concern for her funders. I know a lot of reporters, like the ones at the Wall Street Journal, couldn't do the math from the FEC reports, but here's a quick breakdown:
Clinton reported $33.1 million cash on hand at the end of February. Of that total, $21.7 can only be spent in the general election leaving her with $11.4 million. She has debts of $8.7 million, so the campaign is down to $2.7 million. Subtract the $5 million loan Clinton owes herself, she's in the red. (The WSJ reported the debt to vendors was only $3.7 million, which is wrong, but they haven't corrected it.)
That's a problem for a candidate whose inevitability was built, in part, on her fundraising ability.
But, what are Hillary's top fundraisers doing? They sent a clearly menacing letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi with veiled references to how much dough they give to Democrats. Greg Sargent has a copy of the letter at TPM Elections:
Quote:
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.
What does that language mean? It isn't limited to superdelegates, that's for sure. The letter says "each of the delegates." That is significant. Keep in mind that the super rich contributors are upset with Pelosi for saying last week:
Quote:
"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party"
Now, of course, Pelosi is right. That would be harmful to the Democratic Party. But, Hillary and her rich supporters care about Hillary, not the Democratic Party. And, this isn't just about superdelegates. Clinton's donors are directing Pelosi to go public and endorse Hillary's comments from a few days ago, when Hillary said that the elected delegates, the ones YOU voted for already, don't have to support Obama even though YOU voted for him. In their world, those delegates can just vote for Hillary anyway. That's what this letter is about. It's about extorting Pelosi to hand Hillary the election by stealing Obama's delegates. It's about Hillary doing something that a month ago she promised she wasn't going to do - try to steal Obama's delegates. (To be clear, I don't think there is any way Clinton could win over any of Obama's delegates. I have no doubt his delegates will stick with him. But, the Clinton campaign has reached the point of desperation that they are willing to try. Actually, Clinton should be more worried about her delegates ditching her for the candidate who is going to win the nomination -- and be the next President.)
What Hillary is quite literally doing is threatening to destroy the party if she isn't handed the nomination.
This is crazy. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to end this disaster now.
.... This is crazy. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to end this disaster now. ...
I think it would be best if the process just plays out. It won't help Obama to have the nomination further tainted if the leaders look like their trying to shut down the process early to hand him the nomination.
The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post, to bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a "war zone" by a first lady since World War II. She is overlooking a trip to Saigon by Pat Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War as well as a trip by Barbara Bush to Saudi Arabia two months before the Persian Gulf War began.
The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post, to bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a "war zone" by a first lady since World War II. She is overlooking a trip to Saigon by Pat Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War as well as a trip by Barbara Bush to Saudi Arabia two months before the Persian Gulf War began.
As the WP points out in it's fact check, they also overlooked those examples themselves. Apparently their main point is that they can't be relied upon as a source for accuracy?
Quote:
Just because something has appeared in a newspaper does not mean that is entirely accurate. The Clinton camp has circulated a March 26, 1996, quote from a Post article describing Clinton's Bosnia trip as "the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone." The article went on to say that "other first ladies have visited troops abroad but never in front-line positions," citing the examples of Bush and Nixon.
No Pinochio's were self inflicted on the WP of course
MEM. You might want to tune into Hardball right now. MSNBC is calling her a liar on NAFTA opposition and an idiot for her indignation a while back over Obama's mailer pointing it out and are backing it up with the documentation. Believe me, I'll post that video as soon as it becomes available.
Hillary is a LIAR!!
As I've said repeatedly.
EDIT
The Hillary supporter was unny. Every evidence touted he dismissed by ignoring and then spun furiously about 'looking forward an not back'. In other words, ignore the concrete and documented evidence of Hillary's support for NAFTA from day one and instead believe her rhetoric about wanting to change it.
I dunoo.. you got mad when I suggested a cult of personality but it really bugs me when people brush aside concrete evidence about someones record and instead tell you to believe the campaign's spin instead.
she has said she negotiated to open the borders in Macedonia, the borders turned out to have been opened the day before she got there.
She claimed the critical role in the peace process in Ireland, there‘s two equally weighted testimonies about whether or not that was true. So, that‘s like a 50/50 on that. But there are people involved of the process, David Tremble who says she‘d never had anything to do with it other that arranging lunches for people, and now, the Bosnia thing.
She substantively exaggerated her role in S-CHIP, the children‘s health program. She was not involved in the passage of that. She was involved later on in helping it be implemented by the states. But she was not involved in the passage and she claimed that she was.
She was not involved in the Family and Medical Leave Act passage. She was involved in some follow on, more minor legislation. So, I think it‘s important to look at the substance rather than the exaggerations of whether she made a corkscrew landing or dodged fire in Tuzla. And I do think that there is an issue here where she wants to run as the experienced candidate.
She has made the point of claiming that Barack Obama passed much less legislation, which is also not true. Each one of them has only two pieces of legislation of any consequence that they got through the United States Senate. It‘s two to two on important legislation. So, there is a whole series of distortions here that she‘s engaged in order to advance her campaign.
As far as being there for important descisions in the Clinton Administration, she didn‘t have a security clearance in the Clinton administration. So, while she was there, in the cockpit or bedroom with the commander in chief she wasn‘t actually in on any, you know, discussions about national security policy because she didn‘t have the proper clearance to do so.
Clinton camp never briefed Ottawa, official says CAMPBELL CLARK
With a report from The Canadian Press
March 8, 2008
OTTAWA -- The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never briefed Canadian officials on its position on NAFTA, unlike the team of rival Barack Obama, according to a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Mr. Obama's campaign has been hurt by leaks that indicated that his senior economic adviser gave Canadian diplomats a back-channel reassurance that his call for renegotiating the North American free-trade agreement was more political positioning than a real policy plan.
But the revelation that the initial leak to reporters from Mr. Harper's top aide, Ian Brodie, was that Ms. Clinton's campaign reassured Canadian diplomats that it was not serious about revamping NAFTA has led to questions about whether both Democratic campaigns had privately reassured Ottawa.
Mr. Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, said yesterday that Ms. Clinton's campaign did not brief Canadians on its NAFTA stand. "The answer is no, they did not," she said.
she has said she negotiated to open the borders in Macedonia, the borders turned out to have been opened the day before she got there.
She claimed the critical role in the peace process in Ireland, there‘s two equally weighted testimonies about whether or not that was true. So, that‘s like a 50/50 on that. But there are people involved of the process, David Tremble who says she‘d never had anything to do with it other that arranging lunches for people, and now, the Bosnia thing.
She substantively exaggerated her role in S-CHIP, the children‘s health program. She was not involved in the passage of that. She was involved later on in helping it be implemented by the states. But she was not involved in the passage and she claimed that she was.
She was not involved in the Family and Medical Leave Act passage. She was involved in some follow on, more minor legislation. So, I think it‘s important to look at the substance rather than the exaggerations of whether she made a corkscrew landing or dodged fire in Tuzla. And I do think that there is an issue here where she wants to run as the experienced candidate.
She has made the point of claiming that Barack Obama passed much less legislation, which is also not true. Each one of them has only two pieces of legislation of any consequence that they got through the United States Senate. It‘s two to two on important legislation. So, there is a whole series of distortions here that she‘s engaged in order to advance her campaign.
As far as being there for important descisions in the Clinton Administration, she didn‘t have a security clearance in the Clinton administration. So, while she was there, in the cockpit or bedroom with the commander in chief she wasn‘t actually in on any, you know, discussions about national security policy because she didn‘t have the proper clearance to do so.
Wow, I gave off a LONG litany of Hillary lies and you bring up the NAFTA thing as a "he does it too!" rationale??
That's pretty weak I must say. Especially seeing as ho we already did this dance yesterday.
Now that the press is on to her "misstatements". It should be quite interesting to see what else surfaces. If anything, all these examples I noted deserve a fresh re-airing.
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama put rival Hillary Clinton on the spot by releasing his full tax returns and challenging her to do the same.
By disclosing his 2000-2006 returns earlier than is customary, the Illinois senator is forcing Clinton either to reveal details about investments by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, or to face more questions about what they aren't making public.
Obama's action ``makes a statement,'' said Joe Thorndike, who tracks presidential-tax returns at Tax Analysts, a Falls Church, Virginia-based publisher. ``They've clearly drawn some battle lines here with the Clinton campaign. Obama is looking for an edge in the openness front here, and I think he's successfully claimed it.'' ...
Clinton, 60, a New York senator, said yesterday that she would offer additional information on her finances ``within the next week,'' although she didn't say whether that would include full returns, or only a summary.
Hillary will probably claim that Obama is attacking her by doing this and then say that Obama has something to hide because he didn't release his 1999 tax return. Or she'll find a donation to MoveOn.Org and accuse him of promoting a " far leftist hate" site or something equally right wing sounding.
.... This is crazy. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to end this disaster now. ...
I think it would be best if the process just plays out. It won't help Obama to have the nomination further tainted if the leaders look like their trying to shut down the process early to hand him the nomination.
I don't think that trying to blackmail DNC chair Howard Dean into seating the Florida delegates last week and now trying to extort Nancy Pelosi into giving her the delegates is going to endear her to superdelegates or party officials, much less the party rank and file and the electorate in general.
Then, over the weekend, having her surrogate, James Carville supposedly try to demonstrate how to intimidate superdelegates by calling them mean names of biblical proportions for siding with Obama, is the last desperate gasps of a dying campaign.
So if she thinks this is going to somehow sway the superdelegates with her antics, especially in light of the new poll numbers, she and her supporters are sadly deluded.
It's twilight in the Clinton campaign. Thank goodness.
heh. I love that video of her. She looked genuienly peeved that she got caught lying and had to admit to it and then tries to testily dismiss it and then flashed a canned fake smile as if she's somehow above it all. But fuck, even that looked rehearsed and handler prepared. The flippancy, then victimization, and then the teeth.
There's no way to look graceful having to admit you've been lying your ass off repeatedly about your Bosnian adventures in heroism.
I think we can all agree that dishonesty is not something we‘re looking for in a presidential candidate. And I think there is a troubling pattern here.
And this gets back to the whole message that Obama has been running on from the start, that we need to fundamentally change the way we do business in Washington, D.C. We need someone who has a different approach, who doesn‘t go and spin everything to absurd levels, as Hillary and her handlers seems to do. who‘s going to focus honestly on issues when they come up.
And I think this is a great opportunity for Obama to once again point out he‘s going to bring about that change. He‘s going to approach politics and issues honestly, not constantly try to spin them in a way that makes them unrecognizable from the truth.
She‘s ready on day one. Based on what, exactly? The experience has been greatly exaggerated.
And throughout this campaign what we‘ve seen from Obama is judgment, good judgment in difficult times as he stepped up and addressed the issue of race relations honestly and openly. That‘s the type of leadership you need to be ready to face a crisis on day one. Dishonesty isn‘t going to get you there.
The fallout over Hillary Rodham Clinton's false claim of facing sniper fire in Bosnia has dented her credibility with undecided superdelegates just as she's wooing them to sway the nomination her way, some Democratic leaders said yesterday.
The incident "is perhaps a little more troubling" than some others where Clinton has been accused of padding her résumé as an experienced candidate, said lawyer Keith Roark, a Democratic National Committee member and superdelegate from Idaho.
"Anyone who's ever been in actual gunfire doesn't make a mistake about whether they were ducking their heads, because they wouldn't forget," added Roark, who said he's still undecided.
Susan Burgess, a Clinton superdelegate from North Carolina, acknowledged the fabrication could hurt the former first lady among undecided superdelegates.
Waring Howe, a superdelegate from South Carolina who supports Barack Obama, said the Bosnia flap very well could damage her among other party bigwigs who already have concerns about her credibility.
The conventional wisdom held that the recent controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright would help drag one Democratic presidential hopeful down, at least a little while helping push the other up. As it turns out, according to the new poll from NBC News/Wall Street Journal, that’s exactly what happened — though the candidate that was supposed to go down went up.
Indeed, the poll results aren’t encouraging for the Clinton camp. While she had a four-point lead over Obama among Dems two weeks ago, she and Obama are now tied at 45%. In hypothetical general-election match-ups, Obama now leads McCain by two (44% to 42%), while McCain leads Clinton by two (46% to 44%). The Wright controversy was supposed to drive white Dems to Clinton in larger numbers, but her margin actually shrank in recent weeks, from 12 points to eight.
But it’s the personal impressions of Clinton that should be of the greatest concern. It appears, based on the data, that the tone of the nominating fight is taking its toll.
The silver lining in the whole Wright flap is that since right wing media has been pumping this story up to absurd levels, as shown in that Chris Wallace episode on FOX, it'll be hard for them to have spent 2 weeks talking about Obama's "racist Baptist Church" and then just simply go back to claiming Obama is a Muslim without lossing credibility among those that actually believe them.
But the Wright story was just too tempting and juicy that they must've thought they could do more damage airing and re-airing Wright footage than by simply continuing to insinuate That Obama was a Muslim. And highlighting Wright (and the fact that Obama is a Baptist) backfired since it only prompted Obama to step up and show true leadership, maturity and honesty about race and inspirational oratory. Instead of accentuating his supposed "radical" negatives, it served to highlight his positives when he gave that speech.
At least 30% of Hillary donors who threatened Pelosi slept in the Lincoln Bedroom during Bill's presidency
It looks like some gifts just keep on giving. At least 6 of the 20 big Dem donors who are now threatening to exort Nancy Pelosi on behalf of Hillary slept in the Lincoln Bedroom while Bill and Hillary were in the White House. (I only have the list of who slept in the bedroom during four years, i.e., half, of the Clinton presidency. Some reporters need to ask the Clinton campaign if anyone else on this list slept in the Lincoln Bedroom.) You'll recall that some 831 or so special friends of the Clintons got to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom during four years of the Clinton presidency (that's about 4 a week, every week, for 4 years). You would think that this is the kind of bad publicity that Hillary's little band of extortionists wouldn't want. Well they're going to get it. Here's the list of big Dem donors who are now threatening the party if Pelosi doesn't cave to their demands and help Hillary - the ones in bold are Lincoln Bedroom guests, per CNN (CNN only has the list for 4 years):
Marc Aronchick Clarence Avant Susie Tompkins Buell Sim Farar (CNN says a "Sym" Farar stayed in the bedroom) Robert L. Johnson Chris Korge Marc Lasry Cathy Lasry Hassan Nemazee Alan Patricof Susan Patricof JB Pritzker Amy Rao Lynn de Rothschild Haim Saban Bernard Schwartz Stanley S. Shuman Jay Snyder Maureen White Steven Rattner
Stoller also notes that nearly half of the group donated to Lieberman's Senate campaign. And i'm willing now to bet money that Lieberman will be McCain's VP nominee under the premise of being some bs "unity" ticket. But when you're a DLC Democrat, are you really representing real Democrats? And Lieberman, well, he's not even a Democrat anymore! Let's also not forget Hillary is really pumping up McCain's experience above her own parties front runner.
Some Democrats these DLC types are They get indignant when the party retakes the House and Senate and badmouth the Democratic front runner while praising the Republican opponent. then they try to extort and blackmail if the party doesn't coronate them over someone who actually has the grass roots soundly behind them.
What's more, Make no mistake, Hillary was behind yesterday's letter threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Your top donors don't make a public move like that against the top elected official in the House without Hillary's approval (and most likely, Hillary's coordination).
The thing is, Hillary has now moved beyond endangering the Dems race for the White House. She's now risking the Democratic House Majority.
The DCCC is the body responsible for electing and re-electing Democrats in the House. By getting her rich super-donors to threaten to stop funding the DCCC, Hillary is threatening to severely damage the Dems efforts to hold the House in the fall. If the DCCC doesn't have as much money, then every candidate the DCCC supports will get less money.
Ever single Democrat in the House, all 232 of them, are SuperDelegates. Perhaps it's time we asked those SuperDelegates who are supporting Hillary, and those who are undecided and inexplicably not choosing sides, whether they agree that it's appropriate for Hillary to threaten a boycott of the DCCC, effectively holding hostage every Democrat in the House.
Th only way I see this is going to be resolved NOW is for these superdelegates to pick sides ASAP! Before Hillary brings down the entire party in her lust for power.
"Somebody forgot to tell Hillary Clinton the Democratic presidential race is over and Barack Obama won."
Hillary has lost her inevitability, her come-back status, and now the entire media narrative. That first sentence of the Reuters story is devastating. The media finally gets it. The race is over. Hillary is simply causing as much damage as possible before the inevitable.
Hillary’s Other Fabrication By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Now that Hillary has been nailed in an outright fabrication of her role in Bosnia, it is time to remind ourselves of another, even more galling, fantasy that Hillary tried to sell to voters.
After Sept. 11, Hillary had a problem. New Yorkers were desperately focused on their own need for protection and they were saddled with a senator who was not one of them — an Arkansan, or was it a Chicagoan?
Interviewed on the “Today Show” one week after Sept. 11, she spun an elaborate yarn. The kindest thing we could say was that it was a fantasy. Or a fabrication.
She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea’s life. But Chelsea told Talk magazine that she was in a friend’s apartment four miles from ground zero when the first plane hit. Her friend called her, waking her up, and told her to turn on the TV. On television, she saw the second plane hit, disproving Hillary’s claim that “she heard the plane hit. She heard it. She did.”
So why did Hillary make up the story about Chelsea? Most likely to was because her co-senator (and implicit rival for the voters’ affection), a real New Yorker, Charles Schumer (D), spoke of his daughter, who attended Stuyvesant High School, located next to the Trade Center, being at real risk on Sept. 11. Hillary needed to make herself part of the scene.
She invented the entire story on national television, the “Today Show,” and didn’t blink an eye.
Her fabrication on the “Today Show” was no unique foray. It is her standard M.O. It gives us pause in evaluating all of her stories and calls into question her entire credibility.
"She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea’s life."
Maybe this is the sniper fire Hillary was Misspeaking about?
I still love the fact that many Democrats are just now starting to realize what assholes the Clintons are.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I still love the fact that many Democrats are just now starting to realize what assholes the Clintons are.
I'm watching MSNBC right now. they had a side-by-side of Clinton and Obama making silmultaneous speeches on the economy.
I gotta love that Clinton's backdrop is some bullshit slogan "solutions for the American Economy". Exactly how is this different from the current speeches by Bush were he has a backdrop with some bullshit slogan his people came up with?
Hillary's threat against Pelosi and DCCC seems to be backfiring on the Hill. From Jake Tapper at ABC:
Quote:
ABC News' Political Director David Chalian reports that a Democratic operative unaffiliated with either campaign and familiar with the reaction to the letter among Members of Congress says, "Members of Congress - who are superdelegates - make up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" or DCCC from which the donors seemed to be threatening to withhold funds.
"Threatening the DCCC is equal to threatening the superdelegates Sen. Hillary Clinton's trying to court. The Clinton donor letter will just push undeclared superdelegates in Congress leaning toward Obama to endorse him sooner. It also reinforces the narrative that she'll destroy the party to win."
Whoops. There goes those superdelegates.
Mark Penn and his standard textbook scorched Earth negative campaign is the gift that just keeps giving. To Obama that is
The desperation is so self-destructive that she might even lose ground in Pennsylvania.
More proof of the blowback against the extortionists, from MSNBC's First Read:
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Quote:
A Democratic source in Washington provides the following letter from a major Democratic donor as evidence that yesterday's "shakedown" letter to Speaker Pelosi is having an effect antithetical to its intention.
Leslie Walker Burlock of San Francisco writes yesterday to Nancy Pelosi pledging the max $28,000 to the DCCC. The Dem source says Ms. Burlock wrote after learning of the letter from the group of heavy hitters, a move that Burlock disagreed with.
I spoke with Ms. Burlock by phone. She says that yes, she agrees with Nancy Pelosi's stance on superdelegates, and that yes, she is an Obama supporter. But she demurred when asked several different ways whether or not her pledge comes as a rebuttal to the letter from the others. She didn't deny it, however.
The letter:
Quote:
March 26, 2008
Dear Madame Speaker,
I have joined your "Speaker's Cabinet - Gold" for the 20008 Democratic National Convention because I want to be in the convention hall when Senator Barack Obama accepts our party's nomination to be the next president of the United States. I hope and trust that when the Super Delegates cast their votes at the convention they will represent the will of the voters as you have called for them to do. I am hopeful that with this election we will see a break from the quid pro quo endorsements that seem to dominate our political system and that with a new administration we will have a fresh start and be able to build coalitions that reach across party lines and political allegiances. I look forward to an administration that will be a "team of rivals" where the best minds are called to the table to work together to tackle the challenges that face our nation and the world.
Sincerely, Leslie Walker Burlock
MoveOn.org, which has endorsed Obama, has also weighed in with the following letter to supporters:
Quote:
Dear MoveOn member,
This is pretty outrageous: a group of Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.1
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. Clicking here will add your name to our statement:
The statement reads: "The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters—not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We've given money—and time—to progressive candidates and causes, and we'll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."
We're launching it today with our friends at the blog OpenLeft.com. Our goal is to deliver tens of thousands of signatures to Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders later this week.
A few weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi told ABC News, "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."2
She's right, but Clinton's top fundraisers want her to back off. According to the New York Times, their 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."3 Their language was careful, but their implied threat was universally understood. (Roll Call carried this headline: "Clinton donors threaten Pelosi and DCCC."4)
They're the old guard, and this is how the Democratic Party used to function—the big donors called the shots. But the small donor revolution has changed that. The 20 people who signed this letter have given Democrats an average of $2.4 million per year over the last 10 years.5 Small donations now dwarf that: In February alone, Obama and Clinton raised $47 million in small donations.6
Still, old habits die hard. We need to send a strong signal that we, the small donors, will back Democratic leaders who have the courage to stand up and do the right thing. Please sign our statement today.
Extort is a pretty big word to throw around Whomod. Even Hillary supporters have a right to talk to our representatives. Also Obama supporters have resorted to some tactics concerning the superdelegates that are not cool.
I will be voting for McCain btw Whomod if you & your cult of Obama succeed in getting him nominated. I'll be dedicating the vote to you
Extort is a pretty big word to throw around Whomod. Even Hillary [fatcat old guard] supporters have a right to [threaten] our representatives. Also Obama supporters have resorted to some tactics concerning the superdelegates that are not cool.
I will be voting for McCain btw Whomod if you & your cult of Obama succeed in getting him nominated. I'll be dedicating the vote to you
That sounds like pure bitterness and spite. A lot like Hillary's current tactics BTW.
But reading between those comments, can I conclude that you think twilight is upon the Clinton campaign?
The Clinton campaign knew of the threatening letter to Pelosi and stands by it: The "letter speaks for itself"
Oh, yes, the letter does speak for itself.
Sam Stein from the Huffington Post reports on yet another Clinton campaign conference call:
Quote:
Aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that they knew key fundraisers for her campaign were sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi, castigating the Speaker over her position on superdelegates and threatening, vaguely, to withhold campaign donations.
And while they did not go so far as to say they approved of the letter's content -- "we didn't know what was in it," said spokesman Phil Singer -- they did argue that the "letter speaks for itself."
"There is clearly a broad feeling among many Democrats and many people who are active in the party," said Singer, "that the role of superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment and make a decision that is best for the party and best for the country."
Wow. The Clinton campaign really has gone off the deep end if they think that letter helps them in any way. Outside of the Clinton bubble, the letter has been a disaster. The letter that "speaks for itself" screams "blackmail" and when the term "blackmail" is being used, it's never good.
Party leaders and superdelegates should listen just once to a Clinton campaign conference call. Then, knowing that Clinton cannot win the nomination, they need to ask if we need three more months of that vitriol.
But MEM, you apparently like that old tyme Clinton top down style of campaigning where the fat cats call the shots and the grassroots is "a cult". Well this millions strong cult is throwing out these fake DLC Democrats and taking back our party from these corporatist phonies, $25 dollars a time. Thank you very much.
Extort is a pretty big word to throw around Whomod. Even Hillary [fatcat old guard] supporters have a right to talk to our representatives. Also Obama supporters have resorted to some tactics concerning the superdelegates that are not cool.
I will be voting for McCain btw Whomod if you & your cult of Obama succeed in getting him nominated. I'll be dedicating the vote to you
That sounds like pure bitterness and spite. A lot like Hillary's current tactics BTW.
But reading between those comments, can I conclude that you think twilight is upon the Clinton campaign?
So if Hillary wins the nomination then you will vote for her....right?
They get indignant when the party retakes the House and Senate and badmouth the Democratic front runner while praising the Republican opponent. 
then they try to extort and blackmail if the party doesn't coronate them over someone who actually has the grass roots soundly behind them.
