Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Donors Warn Pelosi on Superdelegates


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., steps out of her vehicle at the airport in Latrobe, Pa., after campaigning at the University of Pittsburgh in Greensburg, Pa., Tuesday, March 25, 2008. (AP.)

By Dan Balz
Wealthy pro-Clinton Democrats escalated their efforts to keep the nomination battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton open through the remainder of the primaries and to encourage uncommitted superdelegates not to be guided solely by the pledged delegate count in casting their votes at the convention.

A group of major contributors to the Democratic Party sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today calling on her to back away from previous comments and reaffirm that superdelegates should be free to back whichever candidate they believe would be the party's best nominee.

The contributors said Pelosi has laid out an "untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984" by suggesting on ABC's "This Week" recently that supedelegates should support whichever candidate has the lead in pledged delegates. "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," she said.

The contributors, who include some of Clinton's biggest bundlers, said that, with 10 contests remaining and millions of Democrats yet to be heard from, any effort to short-circuit the process should be curtailed, and they suggested that Pelosi's declaration that superdelegates follow the pledged delegate count fell into that category.

Obama leads among pledged delegates and is not likely to relinquish that lead by the time the primaries end in June. Clinton hopes to narrow the gap and to finish the primaries ahead or very close to Obama in the popular vote.

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]," the contributors wrote. "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."

The letter was signed by nearly two dozen people, including Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert L. Johnson, Bernard Schwartz, Maureen White and Steven Rattner.

Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and one of the organizers of the letter, said the objective was to "to make sure this thing isn't over till it's over" and to "send a message to those who want to cut off debate, that that's not in the best interests of the Democratic Party."

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 26, 2008; 2:25 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On War and the Economy, McCain Provides a Clear Contrast
Next: Gravel Joins the Libertarians

Comments

Nice site link [URL=http://tabako.freehyperspace2.com/index.html] links [/URL]

Posted by: Ivan | May 11, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

ARE WE ALL WATCHING THE COMPASSION FORUM?

Posted by: DXCITED1 | April 13, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

In other words, the hell with the voice of the people get Hillary the nomination.

I guess the American version of "Sieg Heil" would "Sieg Hillary". If the Democrats no stop this stupidity they will give the election to McCain. Maybe they have already.

Robert

Posted by: rscott1 | March 31, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I have also tried to send a message to Nancy Pelosi, but all E-mails have been returned. Only those from individuals in her district are accepted. Why not let us ordinary people know how to reach her. The outrage about her efforts to control the superdelegates goes much deeper than the big money supporters.

Posted by: anna617 | March 30, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I have also tried to send a message to Nancy Pelosi, but all E-mails have been returned. Only those from individuals in her district are accepted. Why not let us ordinary people know how to reach her. The outrage about her efforts to control the superdelegates goes much deeper than the big money supporters.

Posted by: anna617 | March 30, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm sitting here at my desk with Pelosi's photo that I received for my support to the Democratic victory in 2006. It was taken when she was sworn in as Speaker of the House and I've been proud to display it.

No longer. I'm afraid it must now be relegated to a drawer because she is not the person I thought she was. Her thinly veiled support of Barack Obama is so unprofessional it's disturbing to say the least. She and the DCCC have lost my support. I will support individual members of Congress who share my political views from now on.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 29, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

As a life long California resident, and a resident of San Francisco for the last 8 years, I've been an avid supporter of Pelosi - until now.

I wrote her office and will continue to write and call, and I encourage others from her district to do the same.

My message to her is:

1) Maintain neutrality about the Superdelegates in accordance with the principals guiding their establishment.

2) Become a more vocal proponent of having
Florida and Michigan's voices heard and counted in order to protect our most fundamental and cherished democratic right: the right to vote.

Or lose my financial support, lose my vote, and count on me to campaing vigorously against you in future elections.

Posted by: Torch2008 | March 29, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Funny that Pelosi feels no compunction to support the candidate that carried her state but feels that others should abide by the interpretation which will allow them to support her candidate. Of course, she's in "good" company with Ted Kennedy also not really caring much about what the people of his state think.
Hey, if the Obama superdelegates can thumb their noses at the results from their states, so can the Clinton superdelegates (and delegates) who have watched this contest develop.
That is how Clinton will win and you can't fault those that go with Clinton while ignoring the ones that have ignored their states by supporting Obama.
And you can't ignore the Republicans who have voted for Obama to get Clinton out of the race who WILL return to McCain in November. Look at Texas where they are already identifying just those issues from Obama caucus results.
On a final note, at least Clinton has a history of supporting everybody in this country and not just the white people here or in other predominantly white countries. Every bit of history on Obama points to his pride in his black heritage and Africa as well as his support of the black causes and efforts here and in Africa. I applaud him for those efforts but require a much wider history for the person who will ultimately represent all races and ethnic peoples of this country.
Had Clinton or McCain devoted all of their free time and efforts to helping poor white people get ahead and out of the slums of Chicago or New York or the backhills of this country and pushed for the advancement and education of white people here and abroad in their fight of AIDS and HIV, they wouldn't even be in this contest. Why is Obama?
For the record: My family is white, black, hispanic, and American Indian and it includes gays as well as straights. I prefer someone we can ALL have faith in.

Posted by: glosski | March 28, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

I think Pelosi needs to get off the stick and realize she is in line to be the first woman president if she would just do her job and impeach the lying sacks we have for a p and vp she needs to focus on what the voters put her in this job in 2006 so that hillary and obama can have the fantastic backdrop of impeachment proceeding on TV at convention and election time. hillary and obama do not need pelosi delegate meddling. follow rules.

Posted by: ppoads | March 28, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

People, we should for the sake of this issue at least all unite and express our disbelief at what is in principle being suggested.

This is not the Socialist United States of America.

That the "central Committe" could overturn the will of the people, and all men in the eys of the Democartic party are therefore not "created equal" is tantamount to the hijacking of the very Democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.

I would suggest thet anyone who ina nay way sees this as acceptabl;e is actually a closet communist or very close to being one..

Perhaps they would like to live in Zimbabwe or Pakistan where if the 'candidate' is unhappy with the will of the people then they take extra steps to ensure they win.

It doesnt matter if it is Mickey Mouse running against the Rod Runner. WHo is running is not significant here, the issue is simply the proposition itself.

I challenge anyone here to explain how this acceptable? I am of course now expecting a litany of Obama fans and Hillary fans to put respective spin on it as it pertyains to their candidate.

make no mistake, anyone who sees this as accpetable whether it be proposed by either side..... doesnt grasp democracy. fullstop.

The Democtartic party have ctreated a disaster with the Superdelegate concept it seems and their "power of veto" should be stripped immediately as a matter of process and to ensure transparency..

At the next debate both candidates should be asked directly whether they support the prionciple behind such a course of action...

Do we want a Premier or a Preident.


Posted by: njhardy123 | March 28, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I am not a law enforcement official, but I know a blackmail letter when I see one. These are the people that will follow Hillary to the White House if she wins. They will be appointed to various posts in her administration where they can continue to line their pockets at the expense of the voting pubic. In other words, politics as usual!
Obama's campaign meshes quite seamlessly with the plan originated by Dean and attacked by Clinton & the DLC. Dean changed the course of the Democratic party by establishing a 50 state strategy. The Clintons wanted to stay with a 'Blue State' strategy financed primarily by these same big fund raisers. The strategy was further enhanced by Obama's fund raising strategy of millions of small donors in 50+ states. That is what this fight is about and hence this blackmail letter to Pelosi. Maybe the case can be submitted to "Law And Order" for review. I'm looking forward to that episode.

Posted by: coach777b | March 28, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

It's getting really crazy with this Dem primary. Bottom line, Obama is NOT the right candidate. I hope people wisen up and pray for enlightenment. The "vision" he has about the IRAQ war is shared by millions of people. Why on earth does Obama think that's a good campaigning line? After that, what has he accomplished? ..... The silence is deafening...

GO HILLARY!

Posted by: marian4sg | March 28, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

These Clinton donors are not only wealthy, but a majority of them also have a significant relationship with the American-style Imperialism Political Action Committee.

One can't help wonder if they simply favor Hillary in general or if they particularly support her aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East where "nothing is off the table".

If the motivations and influence of this group's lobbying become too aggressive or too visible, it may represent a 'bridge too far' and result in some unintended 'blowback'.

Posted by: macturna1 | March 28, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The whole point of living in a democracy is to enable the people to choose. If we want party officials of any party to "annoint" a leader, we no longer have a democracy but an oligarchy, where the few choose for the many. Quite frankly, I am totally turned off by the suggestion that anyone should drop out of the presidential race before all of the people have a chance to vote. If some people are to be denied the opportunity to express their choice because of the concerns of party officials, then the primary process is nothing more than an illusion and democracy doesn't exist.

Posted by: ccicchetti | March 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Lovely, so the big money wants to ignore voters? Wow, after Florida in 2000, one would think that the Democratic Party would have a little more sense, and one would hope that Clinton's own campaign would realize how badly this will play out in the media. "Clinton's big money supporters seek to reject the popular vote" is not exactly the message that a campaign ought to send under any circumstances. Between the Bosnia fibs and this, Clinton needs to take a refresher course in how to run a smart campaign.

The real laugh in this, of course, would be if Clinton were to slip ahead in the popular vote after the next several states finish voting. It's unlikely, but were it to happen, we can be assured that Clinton's supporters and her campaign will make one of the biggest 180-degree turns in history to suddenly start trumpeting the popular vote as the essence of democracy and the only standard by which to choose the nominee.

A campaign run like this one on sheer opportunism really makes me question whether the candidate has the qualities to make a decent president, let alone a good one.

Posted by: blert | March 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Obama release his tax returns on the internet for anyone to see, including Hillary's dirt squad who are paid to dig dirt on Obama? Yes, they apparently have nothing much to hide. ON THE OTHER HAND, the Clintons MUST have a lot to hide because they have been really dragging their feet at this, haven't they? Had this been them releasing and the Obamas's withholding, can you imagine the amount of noise the Clintons and their supporters will make out of that ? No, we can't because it will be just simply too much!

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, davidmwe.

Counting Florida and Michigan might be democratic, but it's not Democratic.

--A frustrated Michigan resident

Posted by: wgmadden | March 28, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

when is the media going to pressure her on the release of the clintons taxes from 2000 thru 2006.it's apparent there is something to hide or there are going to be explanations needed.let's see who in the middle east that BILLY BOB have been doing business with.

Posted by: ronaldtennillegeorgia1 | March 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

As a Florida voter, I, for one, would much rather be disenfranchised because of the failure of Democratic national and state party organizations to communicate than be put through the hoops of a $10 million redo election funded by party fat cats.

Curious that Balz didn't mention Robert L. Johnson's Obama bashing back in January, just before the South Carolina primary, that was so egregious that Johnson issued an apology. "I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the uncalled-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail."


Posted by: profco | March 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Suspicious, I went looking for it and found it...
"MoveOn is also using the funds to help Democrats, including House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state."

Remember Sally Fields in Legally Blonde 2?
http://newsbusters.org/node/5372

Posted by: thinktank | March 28, 2008 5:22 AM | Report abuse

jpreno

The idiot's idiot. Is there any moderator breathing out there?

Stupid beyond belief.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 28, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

I thought Obama's supporters were political activists, ivy-league educated class, if not high-income whites, but why do they talk trash? Gutter-language types. Is Obama like you, guys and gals? How then could you be agents for change, truth and honesty and unite people? You seem to belong to the low I.Q. group, even if Obama is a Harvard-graduate. Not that I descriminate against low IQ's, but can't you make your comments with reasonable intelligence out of respect for your candidate? Or else, why attack Hillary Clinton for the same sins of omission or comission that Obama is also guilty of?

Posted by: Firefly2 | March 27, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I thought Obama's supporters were political activists, ivy-league educated class, if not high-income whites, but why do they talk trash? Gutter-language types. Is Obama like you, guys and gals? How then could you be agents for change, truth and honesty and unite people? You seem to belong to the low I.Q. group, even if Obama is a Harvard-graduate. Not that I descriminate against low IQ's, but can't you make your comments with reasonable intelligence out of respect for your candidate? Or else, why attack Hillary Clinton for the same sins of omission or comission that Obama is also guilty of?

Posted by: Firefly2 | March 27, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I thought Obama's supporters were political activists, ivy-league educated class, if not high-income whites, but why do they talk trash? Gutter-language types. Is Obama like you, guys and gals? How then could you be agents for change, truth and honesty and unite people? You seem to belong to the low I.Q. group, even if Obama is a Harvard-graduate. Not that I descriminate against low IQ's, but can't you make your comments with reasonable intelligence out of respect for your candidate? Or else, why attack Hillary Clinton for the same sins of omission or comission that Obama is also guilty of?

Posted by: Firefly2 | March 27, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I've had enough. I will not stand for McCain winning by default.

DRAFT GORE AT THE CONVENTION


Hillary has proven she is an obsessed, divisive, flawed liar, not to mention it is PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE for her to accumulate enough votes / delegates.
The party will NEVER sit still for or support "superdelegates" picking her when she has no majority of votes or delegates.

If the kids can't learn to play nice like adults (and you KNOW they won't before Pennsylvania / NC) and stop throwing mudpies,

and if Obama can't pull away and unite the party,

we DRAFT GORE at the convention and give either Obama or Richardon the VP spot.

Are you LISTENING, Hillary and Obama?
(especially Hillary)

Posted by: davequ | March 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is a total joke.How is her house's performance rating lately?She should keep travelling to countries like Syria to show how efficient she is!!!

Posted by: mgm18122003 | March 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is a total joke.How is her house's performance rating lately?She should keep travelling to countries like Syria to show how efficient she is!!!

Posted by: mgm18122003 | March 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

MUSLIM LIES --

The ILLIGITIAMTE MUSLIM MESSIA has blundered yet again!!! The self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, lied about the politics of his campaign. The danger involved with this self-aggrandizing, cock-a-hoop, Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama is that -- "Like Father Like Son" Obama is constantly wanting to impress America with "...his incapacity for sound judgment." On top of the horrible crime Obama committed in Harlem, the fact is, we have to hear it from Karl Rove about Obama's latest campaign crisis: "GLORK" Top Ten Obama Lies:

1. Obam said his parents met at the Selma march -- Reality: He was born 4 years before that.

2. Obam said he was a constitutional law professor -- Reality: . . . Obama Made This False Claim In His 2004 Senate Race. "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school..

3. Obam said he spoke fluent Indonesian as a child -- Reality: . . . Obama has claimed on numerous occasions to have become fluent in Indonesian in six months. Yet those who knew him disputed that during recent interviews. Israella Pareira Darmawan, Obama's 1st-grade teacher, said she attempted to help him learn the Indonesian language by going over pronunciation and vowel sounds. Truth-be-told: Obama's Indonesian teachers say NO WAY

4. Obam said he was involved in community asbestos and housing project for the poor -- Reality: Didn't happen. This was the basis for Barrack and Misshell's claim, that he was a community activist on the South and East Side of Chicago. A+ lie both he and his twenty-four (24) mule-team, Hus-suey loving wife Misshell Obama, have been claiming in the campaign -- Reality: The Chicago Newspapers say NO WAY

5. Obam said in his book that he received his racial awakening at age nine reading a Life/Ebony Magazine story about a black man who was scarred trying to dye his skin white -- Reality: Didn't happen. Both Magazines (Life and Ebony), and the Rev. Wright and Farrakhan MUSLIM Trumpet Newsmagazine say, just didn't happen.

6. Obam's Campaign Didn't Have The "Technical Capacity" To Produce The "1984" Ad:

Obama: "But it's not something that we had anything to do with or were aware of and that frankly, given what it looks like, we don't have the technical capacity to create something like that." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 3/24/07) -- Reality:...The Creator Admitted All It Took Was A "Sunday Afternoon" On His Mac. Phillip de Vellis: "I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs."

7. Obam's Campaign Claimed His High School Friend Tried To Extort Money From Them:

"According To The Obama Campaign, [Obama's Punahou Classmate Keith] Kakugawa Explicitly Raised The Possibility That He Could Make Up False Stories About Obama, Implying He Would Do So If The Campaign Did Not Give Him Money." (Maurice Possley, Kirsten Scharnberg and Ray Gibson, -- Reality: "...An Old Friend's Troublesome Return," Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07).

8. Obam voted to bring low-cost foreign labor into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina -- Reality:...This was a slap in the face against the African-Americans who were displaced in that city. Obama also voted to place Michael Chertoff, the man responsible for the Katrina catastrophe, in charge of Homeland Security. Obama voted for the bills that gave Blackwater the funding they needed to shoot the people of New Orleans who were only trying to save their own lives. He voted to allow Michael Chertoff to waive all laws, including murder, torture and kidnaping.

9. Obam voted more than five times for USA-PATRIOT's renewal -- Reality:...This is a bill that is patently offensive to most Americans. City after city has passed resolutions condemning USA-PATRIOT. Obama chose to side with tyranny over freedom and Bush over the people on this issue. The Real ID Act, which would allow Michael Chertoff to declare martial law and imprison all Americans, was supported by Obama, as noted above.

10. Obam is not a MAD MAN. His campaign is Not America's Poison -- Reality:...He's Radio-Active.

Posted by: jreno21 | March 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Why is the Press and media NOT publicizing this information????

Please read below:
________________________________________________ ___
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008 Read complete story at NY Times
Article also at HuffingtonPost web site.


When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."
"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story.

While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon's support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod's company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.
________________________________________

He brags, of couse, that he accepts no $$$ from Lobbyists. As this shows, he doesn't....what he does is take the lobbyists on as Fund Raisers, they in turn hit on their employees to donate to his campaign. This truly is "gutter politics"...


Posted by: accountability_in_gov | March 27, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

1) The idea that a fight into the Democratic Convention would be bad for Democrats is perposterious. . . . It would be the most watched program in the history of Conventions, maybe even, the history of TV. The candidates would know how to play to the viewers and present a civil face.

2) Obama won state that will never vote Democratic in the general election: . . ie, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, S. Carolina, etc. Based on a prejudgist black vote (90%), who would not give a white man or woman a second look with Obama's second-rate Health Care Plan. . . . . . In other words, if the super-delegates don't show some common sense, we will be stuck with a second-rate Health Care Plan because Obama's black! . . . of all things.

Posted by: coldcomfort | March 27, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

People what you have to realize these big donors are used to having their way, they are backing Hillary so of course they don't want the pledged delegates to count. They want Hillary to win at all cost and will destroy the Democratic party to do it. They sent pelosi an ultimatum that they control the democratic party which just proves that people with money run this country not you and me.

Posted by: big__ez | March 27, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like croc teared financial contributors trying to protect their "investment"?

Posted by: Maddogg | March 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Let the wealthy Dems backing Clinton throw good money after bad...it's not uncommon to react that way when you see your precious stock sinking?

Posted by: sbarry | March 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Now we know at least where Hillary's millions come from. Of course these fat cats don't like to see their investment in Hillary go down the drain. They got the Clintons in their pocket. Nancy Pelosi is a brave woman to stand up to them. Americans would vote for her, but never for old Hillary.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

This is insanity! How do you threaten the Speaker of the House for reminding everyone that the one with the most pledged delegates, the most in the popular vote, and the most states won will be confirmed the nominee by the superdelegates?

Would Hillary rather lose among pledge delegates, lose in the popular vote,and lose most states won and then be crowned the nominee in Denver?

Hillary's only hope is to try to destroy hope.

Posted by: unteal | March 27, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

This stuff continues there will be no democratic in the democratic party. Just the Party of the Back room, big money interests.

Posted by: nclwtk | March 27, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama started fresh & with high m oral platform but now he is with controversies like wife's statement of being proud of the country for the first time, Rezko, Pastor outrageous sermon that he & his family was accepting so far publicly w/o any murmuring etc. Just because he is from minority community first time & black candidate the party does not need to give him the nomination. Moreover there looks to be color racism in the block vote of the entire afro american community & not on merit.Lady clinton is the representative of half of the society/ qualified & competitive. At last an woman who should have been president long ago is here how can a member of party high command an woman Nancy Peloski take side early rather shd wait till last moment to find acceptable solution to all.Superdelegates have their own responsibility & not act like ceremonial. I want party to win in Nov.Give this chance to the first lady candidate & let the young Mr. Obama be VP. He has age & will get more chances. Engineer Ram Bahadur K.C. Email : kcengg2hotmail.com posted on 27 March, 2008.

Posted by: kcengg | March 27, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

yeah, let's nominate a racist! Barry,GDA,Obama!

Posted by: newagent99 | March 27, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Let's forget the delegate math and popular vote. Here is the truth about November which noone even looks at. Obama has won the most states but according to the Electoral College which really determines who wins the election Obama will get 202 EC votes to Hillary's 219 EC votes. If we take MI and FL out of the equation which disenfranchising them does, the Democrats lose in November. The numbers are out there if you but they say with Obama as nominee states that are usually strongly Democrat become leaning Democrat. See the following: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
New polling data released on Wednesday shows John McCain opening a lead over both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Missouri. As a result, Missouri has shifted from Toss-Up status to Leans Republican in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator. Democrats are now leading in states with 200 Electoral College Votes. Republicans are favored in states with 189 Votes. All you Obama people look because these figures include your candidate too.

Just for your information Obam has been more negative than Hillary beginning with him calling her Senator Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab). That really looks like scholl yard bully tactics.

Posted by: renaissancelady | March 27, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

By the way the Democratic Party needs the money of those large donors. See this story on the convention:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-denverdems21mar21,1,6620644.story?track=rss
As the host city, Denver must raise $40.6 million by June 16 for the party's Aug. 25-28 convention. This week, the host committee missed its second fundraising deadline, and Mayor John W. Hickenlooper said he believed the drawn-out battle between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois had distracted potential donors.

It would behoove Nancy Pelosi, etal to pay heed to what these donors are saying. Many donors refuse to donate to the DNC not because of the drawn out primary but they are doing it to protest MI amd FL which are needed for the Democrats to get to the White House.

It in truth has little or nothing to with the Clintons. Get your facts right before you spew your hatred for the Clintons all over the place.

Posted by: renaissancelady | March 27, 2008 5:12 AM | Report abuse

I am going to call you on NAFTA. Outsourcing of jobs started long before Bill Clinton and NAFTA. Do some research it isn't hard to find at all.
http://www.opednews.com/sherry1103_outsourcing2.htm
In fact, it began to surface in the late 70's championed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation. Under the auspices of President Ronald Reagan, free trade "throughout the hemisphere" was borne. But truth be known, the seeds were sown long before Ronald Reagan. Richard Milhous Nixon was the first President given authority in the 1974 Fast Track Bill. It was awarded every president thereafter through 1998. Fast Track gives the President sole authority over trade negotiations. Congress, after the fact, can accept or reject the negotiation, but it cannot amend it in any way whatsoever. In effect, Fast Track effectively removes Congress from the process of world trade negotiations.

Hillary did not support NAFTA though she was at some of the meetings onit. She was one of the dissenters. NAFTA has worked for some states and it has not helped in other states.

Posted by: renaissancelady | March 27, 2008 5:04 AM | Report abuse

Those bungling bundling donors are probably particularly aware that the hundreds of millions of dollars given to the Clintons' campaign and charities are seed monies waiting to sprout when the Clintons capture the White House by any means necessary. The Clinton matriarch best stop trying to fool those poor folks who donate and vote for her. Their soon to be released income tax contains the jaw dropping hundreds of millions they have amassed; knowing that those blood sucking ducks who laid those golden eggs for them are clamoring to come knocking on the White House door to retrieve their newly hatched ducklings. The Obama campaign, The Democratic Party and Jane n' Joe citizens have yet to witness the mother load barrage of vicious and relentless battering from the Clinton campaign. King Bill is already signaling that niceties and formalities from all campaigns cease and fully desist, as if his wife campaign had so much to give. This was all supposed to be a slam dunk primary royal party before the full presidential coronation in January 2009. Oh! Senator Obama and Mr. Axelrod why are you guys so cruel and disloyal to the Royal House of the Clintons, how dare you seek to dash the hopes of so many of the wealthy and royal donors of King Bill and Queen Hillary. Now they are going after our House Speaker leader Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: rasgrand | March 27, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

Dear: Honorable Speaker of the House of Representative Ms. Nancy Pelosi,

Re:
Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert L. Johnson, Bernard Schwartz, Maureen White and Steven Rattner and the other Signers of that Undemocratic Blackmail Letter to the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representative Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

Since the Clinton camp most likely encouraged the above named blackmailers to send this highly disrespectful letter to our House Speaker Leader, I will be directing my ire on the Clintons who are gleefully and selfishly trying hard to hurt our party into defeat. Mike Huckabee without confrontationally attacking his opponent stayed in the Republican race to the end and graciously said adieu. In stark contrast with the groveling viciousness of the Clintons attack on Senator Obama. The Clintons tag team double and triple rabid mugging on Barack Obama has even boomerang into jacking up HRC's negatives in polls after polls. Even the American electorate is tiring of her sock it to Obama relentless assault. If she had not laid out the framework on how to go after Obama the McCain camp would hot have benefited on her behalf. She is as much vulnerable to the Republican hit job, only if she is permitted to pull a slick Hillary muck and tear us apart, like she is bent on doing right now. She must be stopped, please disregard those cheapo donors who could not bundle enough dollars for her to waste on her badly ran campaign. Obama's donor list will be a bonanza to the Democratic Party, and his almost 2 million donors will mostly evaporate if the Clintons are allowed to do their willy-nillys and take our party down with them. Those very crass and repressive, barking donors purposefully let loose on you should be made to publicly apologize to you, your honor.

Dear Senator Obama
Dear Bill and Hillary Clinton,
I am specifically sending the above letter to the Honorable Speaker of the House of Representative Ms. Nancy Pelosi,

The Democratic Party is now a very big tent that is open to all Americans regardless of religion; age; gender; race; ethnicity and sexual orientation. The Democratic Party is ready and willing to represent the whole population of this great country. Instead of focusing on the small differences that make us who we are naturally, we should find common ground on those issues threatening our very existence as one strong Democratic lead nation in order to defeat those issues detrimental to us all. The precious blood of our children, family members and cherished fellow citizens flows like water from a badly damaged dam, all over Iraq. Yes, we are all Americans: we bleed red, white and blue on the American common battlefield for freedom. Our hard earned tax dollars are enriching the very rich in the name of Iraq and expensive international corporate welfare, while our work force, infrastructure and schools horribly decay and diminish in value. All those troubling things were mostly supervised under the leadership of the Republican commander in chief residing in our nation's capital. Presently, certain power hungry, win at all cost and lose party unity elements within the Democratic presidential nominating process are threatening to do all they can to encourage the Republican party to retain the commander in chief position. We are on the verge of renewing our dedication to the true strength of our nation at home and abroad. Now those intensely self defeating persons who claim leadership roles in the Democratic party are on an all out offensive to tear the party into pieces to the benefit of the Republican Party. Please stop the overt racial, religious and gender innuendos. If this kind of bickering continues, ultimately, the end result will only allow an already weakened Republican party to win the presidency again. Sadly, our future will bring more wars, fear and a worsening of our economy.

We can win in unity or lose in disunity.

Posted by: rasgrand | March 27, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

As we all know by now, Barack Obama has won way more states, more of the popular vote, more elected delegates, and more overall delegates.

THE ONLY AREA where Obama trails Clinton, is in the number of Superdelegates who have endorsed him.

BUT GUESS WHAT!! Here is a VERY INTERESTING FACT: Since Feb. 5th, 2008, Obama has won the endorsements of 62 Superdelegates. In this same time period, Clinton has won the endorsements of only 4 Superdelegates. OBAMA HAS BEEN STEADILY CLOSING THE GAP ON CLINTON'S SUPERDELEGATE LEAD.

And there is NO REASON to believe this trend will not continue.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 27, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

So rich Clinton "donors" are now trying to dictate how the Democrats nominate their candidate for the presidency?? Come on folks, when will this end??

HILLARY, PLEASE GO AWAY AND LEAVE US ALONE!! Get a little class for once in your life, and go quietly in the night.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 27, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

So rich Clinton "donors" are now trying to dictate how the Democrats nominate their candidate for the presidency?? Come on folks, when will this end??

HILLARY, PLEASE GO AWAY AND LEAVE US ALONE!! Get a little class for once in your life, and go quietly in the night.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | March 27, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama's upscale 'latte liberal' supporters have more money than Clinton's working and middle class base -- the very middle class voters Obama wants to disenfranchise. So spare us the 'regular people' bull.

Posted by: lamachina | March 27, 2008 01:22 AM

Blah blah blah "latte liberal" bs.
You repeat Clintonoid lies as usual.

I am a 52 year old white male from Wisconsin, formerly employed in the paper industry until downsized, with limited employment while back in school.

I voted for Barack Obama. In my district and my state, Obama gained the votes of a wide cross-section of people. Whites - we are the vast majority in Wisconsin - young voters, independents, minorities, and many republicans.

Yeah. Wisconsin. The Land of "latte liberals"

Spare me the bull, so-called lifelong Democrat.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

"Superdelegates were meant to serve as tiebreakers."

No, superdelegates were created because the party doesn't trust its left wing base, and feared its base would nominate a militant left-wing candidate.

The Democratic Party is confused, pulled in too many directions, and bogged down in political correctness. Left wing anti-Clinton Democats should never control the Executive Branch.

As a lifelong Democrat, this Michigan-Florida-superdelegate fiasco by Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile and Howard Dean is making me understand why America has wisely passed on Democratic Presidents -- other than Bill Clinton -- for 40 years. I'd make an exception for Bush, of course.

Obama's upscale 'latte liberal' supporters have more money than Clinton's working and middle class base -- the very middle class voters Obama wants to disenfranchise. So spare us the 'regular people' bull.


Posted by: lamachina | March 27, 2008 01:22 AM

you are right on!

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

"Superdelegates were meant to serve as tiebreakers."

No, superdelegates were created because the party doesn't trust its left wing base, and feared its base would nominate a militant left-wing candidate.

The Democratic Party is confused, pulled in too many directions, and bogged down in political correctness. Left wing anti-Clinton Democats should never control the Executive Branch.

As a lifelong Democrat, this Michigan-Florida-superdelegate fiasco by Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile and Howard Dean is making me understand why America has wisely passed on Democratic Presidents -- other than Bill Clinton -- for 40 years. I'd make an exception for Bush, of course.

Obama's upscale 'latte liberal' supporters have more money than Clinton's working and middle class base -- the very middle class voters Obama wants to disenfranchise. So spare us the 'regular people' bull.

Posted by: lamachina | March 27, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Yeah ok right. If you had a brain you would realize how ridiculously ignorant your comments are. But of course, you don't.

Another credit to the Clinton campaign.
Or the McInsane campaign more likely.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 01:14 AM

Your rabid hatefilled mind will never be able to realize .. but Obama is fnished. Mark my word .. there will be not Swearing in of Obama with his hand on the Quran on Jan 20.

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

So does Hillary Clinton. I would not put it past Obama to channel Arab money through his Farrakhan network

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 01:08 AM

Yeah ok right. If you had a brain you would realize how ridiculously ignorant your comments are. But of course, you don't.

Another credit to the Clinton campaign.
Or the McInsane campaign more likely.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama has hundreds of thousands of small donors. Almost 2 million individual donors. Average contribution $109.

Try using your brain, despite your obvious difficulties in that area.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 01:00 AM

So does Hillary Clinton. I would not put it past Obama to channel Arab money through his Farrakhan network

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama has hundreds of thousands of small donors. Almost 2 million individual donors. Average contribution $109.

Try using your brain, despite your obvious difficulties in that area.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 01:00 AM

So does Hillary Clinton. I would not put it past Obama to channel Arab money through his Farrakhan network

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

These Obama supporter are extremist with foriegn ties. I ask 100% of the clinton supporter not to vote for this unpatriotic Hussein Obama .. for that will be treason by most count.

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 12:59 AM

Thanks for the cogent comments. You're obviously a republican troll, but nevertheless you win the idiot troll of the night. Congratulations!

Unless svreader shows up of course.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama people love their fat-cat Rezko donor but do not like the clinton donors

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 12:48 AM

Obama has hundreds of thousands of small donors. Almost 2 million individual donors. Average contribution $109.

Try using your brain, despite your obvious difficulties in that area.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

These Obama supporter are extremist with foriegn ties. I ask 100% of the clinton supporter not to vote for this unpatriotic Hussein Obama .. for that will be treason by most count.

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

The stupidity on this comment thread is beyond astounding.

Get it, now, Obamanoids?

Posted by: Kat10 | March 27, 2008 12:45 AM

Oh yeah we've got it Clintonoid.

You're losing, and you can't stand it. So lie, spin, change the rules, smear, fling your feces.

That's all you've got now. Thanks for dropping by trying to destroy the party.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama people love their fat-cat Rezko donor but do not like the clinton donors

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

BY THE WAY hUSSEIN OBAMA CANNOT WIN. DID ANYONE REALISE THAT

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

The stupidity on this comment thread is beyond astounding. The point wasn't that these people have a lot of money, it was that if ALL the voters aren't allowed to be heard and the Democratic process isn't allowed to come to an unforced conclusion, these donors will take their money elsewhere, e.g., outside DNC Land. Get it, now, Obamanoids?

Posted by: Kat10 | March 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

They should have a new rule.... The last 10 states will not count in the democratic primary. Has anyone thought about this .. if they are going to stop the contest. why will any State vote after March. THe party will always stop the vote. Can you imagine any scenario where the last 10 Staes's vote will count in the Democratic Primary. Moronic Pelosi!!

Posted by: dsclinton | March 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

I am a 52 year old white male from Wisconsin, formerly employed in the paper industry until downsized, with limited employment while back in school.

I voted for Barack Obama. In my district and my state, Obama gained the votes of a wide cross-section of people. Whites - we are the vast majority in Wisconsin - young voters, independents, minorities, and many republicans.

Obama has hundreds of thousands of small donors. Average contribution $109. Almost 2 million individual contributors. He has won the majority of states, delegates, and popular votes.

A few disgruntled millionaires may have a problem with this unrestrained popular "cultism".

It's lots of people recognizing a great opportunity and a way to make American politics responsive to the actual people in this country.

If Hillary's fat cat donors don't like that, tough. The rest of us 1-2-3-4 million $25 donors will make them irrelevant.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 26, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 26, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

The CLINTON CAMPAIGN IS DISGUSTING.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 26, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

The notion that the vile B.S. being spewed during this campaign is HELPING the Democratic party is ludicrous and ANYONE who believes it is STUPID.

Can ANYONE explain to me how SPENDING TRUCKLOADS of money fighting each other IMPROVES our chances in November?? It's ludicrous!!

MONEY is IMPORTANT in politics and SPENDING it to fight the REPUBLICANS is what SMART Democrats do.

If the superdelegates DO NOT put an END to this, they will be held accountable for that decision during their own re-election.

Posted by: democraticvoter | March 26, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

This superdelegate gamot is getting too wicked. It's mostly about power play and positioning for gains afterwards. Not much about the constituents, not much about the democratic party causes.

I like this video satire is right on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc3-2Wol9MM

Posted by: SuperO | March 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

I can plainly see the woman is ducking sniper fire at the Pennsylvania airport with her bullet-proof SUV and her body guards.

Posted by: sperrico | March 26, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

The statement was made that Hillary will abandon the middle class as soon as she gets elected (and is finished with us). How can you abandon something you have never been with? It is sad to watch. Hillary is the driving force behind President McCain.

Posted by: jkmegs | March 26, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Read the centrist comment... it is very true. For many centrists, McCain is a lot more palatable than Obama. Obama won't just cut it. Now, Obama's character is even in question.

Hillary all the way to the WH!!!

Posted by: CPCook | March 26, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

It's really a shame that Hillary Clinton, who has a 5% chance of winning the Democratic nomination, is still trying to buy the election. Her rich, elite friends used an idol threat of withholding funds to buy Clinton an election she cannot win on her own, with her impressive resume of sniper dodging and Nafta fighting. What a disgrace. Does Bill Clinton care anything about his severely tarnished legacy? These people are truly ruthless and calculating, but mostly desperate!

Posted by: wanakeeh | March 26, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

To tjames91303... From what we are seeing (earmarks, NAFTA, Rezko, Rev Wright, ARROGANCE!!!!), Obama is worse than business as usual. Truth is, if Obama's character, judgment and integrity were not in question, it would have been a lot easier to swallow his very shallow experience. Of course, one cannot blame the blacks for voting for one of their own. I am pretty sure the black voted because of race, but it is cannot because of Obama's qualifications.

Posted by: CPCook | March 26, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

I find it thoroughly disgusting that a few wealthy Clinton donors would use the implied threat of undercutting the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to leverage the Speaker's position on Superdelegates. I say so even with my own ambivalence on the issue, because part of me wants those delegates to show their true public stripes. Should we let them be held accountable, particularly if the cloakroom smells foul because the high-priced tailors have woven the empress's new clothes? Rationally, the stakes for the country are too high to allow this. Yet the letter's authors have the ironic gall to say "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 (emphasis added)..." Yes, Speaker Pelosi, please take "a more open view" and encourage "independent actions" while we hold our financial gun to your head. They say, "None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of [Democratic voters'] voices and their votes" at the same time they recommend that the Superdelegates go fast and loose with the results based on those self-same voters. And did they write their candidate, Sen. Clinton, with the identical criticism, as she trivialized the voters in state after state won by her opponent, as being too small, too demographically atypical (Shhh!!! too...black! They drive Japanese cars!), too unreachable in November, or too (undemocratic!?!) because they were caucus voters? They want her to be "responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters"??? I thought the Democrats were supposed to be looking out for us cattle back in steerage class. Meanwhile, Obama's donor counter nears two MILLION ($200 qualifies as "major"!). His massive ground operation took Clinton and the coasting Democratic establishment totally by surprise. "The overwhelming response...shown for our party's candidates and...a record turnout of voters" cited in the letter have been disproportionately traced to the enthusiasm generated by Obama's campaign. What chutzpah!!! Astoundingly, Clinton has with cold calculation made Obama into the enemy, and raised Republican hopes from the dead. Better these dedicated well-padded Democrats write Speaker Pelosi for help in shutting down their candidate's own vitriol and innuendo about Obama, which has far outpaced the negatives initiated from his campaign.

Posted by: jmccargar | March 26, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's logic is flawed. Why give the superdelegates the votes if they cannot exercise their own judgment? If the superdelegates are to follow the "popular vote", should the superdelegates then just count the primaries, since caucuses are not exactly that "democratic"? The superdelegates are their for a reason, so let them do their work.

The Democratic Party should review the way its nomination process. It is unfortunate that MI and FL are not counted, and for obvious reason, Obama doesn't want them to count. Of course, he doesn't care that the Dems might not carry MI and FL as long as he becomes the nominee, and the funny part is that, Obama's campaign has the audacity to say that the Clintons would do anything to win the nomination. It seems to me that if Obama is somehow true to what he projects himself to be (somebody would not try to win the election at all cost), then he should just agree to let the MI and FL votes stand. But then again, we already have seen his flawed character.

Many argued for Obama because he is a "uniter". Apparently, that's just all talk. 51% of Clinton supporters are voting McCain if Obama is the nominee. (BTW, I am part of that 51%! The country is a bigger cause than the party.) It is also true that except the blacks, Clinton has won the asians, hispanics and whites.

Posted by: CPCook | March 26, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Here's the deal...Nancy Pelosi thinks she's all that...she should have kept her big mouth shut on the subject no matter how she felt. She wanted to show her importance over the Clintons, so she yaks on ABC.
Nancy herself now is finding out...if you flip the Clintons off with one finger...be prepared, they'll flip you back with two.

Posted by: badger3 | March 26, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

The Audacity of Bullies!!
Bill and Hillary Clinton have the audacity to WARN Nancy Pelosi???? How far does their sense of entitlement go? There is no limit.
The last vestiges of any good will I have EVER felt for the Clintons is gone for good.
Enough! Get out of the race Hillary before you add your poisonous presence to that of George's Bush's and put the final nail in the coffin of our struggling nation...

Posted by: ritag1 | March 26, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.

Posted by: Dave20707 | March 26, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a pretty fair bet that Nancy Pelosi will not tell them to shove their money. We know she is worthless, we know she will give in to anything that the Bush administration wants. We know she thinks it is more important to cast a vote to condemn Move-on for an ad, versus taking care of the urgent needs this country faces.
Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Harry Reid are the problems with the party.

Posted by: badger3 | March 26, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton power machine rolls on, wether it splits the party is of no concern.

If Hillary manages to steal the election- the Clinton's are arrogant enough to think that they can fight their way to winning. Unlikely!

If Hill loses the nomination, she is doing everything in her power to see Obama lose in Nov.- and she will begin her 2012 campaign on Nov. 5, with the unbearable whine of "I told you he wasn't electable. The Clinton's have tasted power and they want it again above anything, including their party. This is not tough fighting, it is an unbridled lust for power that is despicable.

Posted by: ebmaryon | March 26, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton power machine rolls on, wether it splits the party is of no concern.

If Hillary manages to steal the election- the Clinton's are arrogant enough to think that they can fight their way to winning. Unlikely!

If Hill loses the nomination, she is doing everything in her power to see Obama lose in Nov.- and she will begin her 2012 campaign on Nov. 5, with the unbearable whine of "I told you he wasn't electable. The Clinton's have tasted power and they want it again above anything, including their party. This is not tough fighting, it is an unbridled lust for power that is despicable.

Posted by: ebmaryon | March 26, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "How about if he's given the VP spot?"

Hard to speculate, since I can't see it happening.

Normally, of course, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unbeatable. However, since the only likely way Hillary could get the top spot at this point is by using the superdelegates to overturn the popular will, she'd be seen as illegitimate by many. Not to mention that Obama would essentially be a figurehead, with Bill serving as the unoffical VP. I really don't know how it would affect black turnout, which is the core of any Dem victory coalition.

Again, I can't see such a combo emerging from Denver; 50-50 if it did happen. Sorry to be so equivocal, but it's my honest answer.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

If Billary and the Monster buy this election I will be one of the millions of Democrats that will vote McCain the new President. She is a Liar and thats worse than what a pastor says, of which he has no control. He is no longer the pastor, argument over!

Posted by: pasolis | March 26, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

If Democrates had winner take all delegates-Clinton would already be toast. What a way to run a primary election-- probably same way they would run the country--not God bless America but God HELP America--Please..

Posted by: cabd4 | March 26, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

If Democrates had winner take all delegates-Clinton would already be toast. What a way to run a primary election-- probably same way they would run the country--not God bless America but God HELP America--Please..

Posted by: cabd4 | March 26, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

What arrogance on their part. I guess these Clinton supporters,like her,could really care less about the Democratic Party, than about their overinflated egos.

Posted by: info | March 26, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

What more proof do we Democrats need that Hillary Clinton is part of the business as usual pay to play politics that we're all so sick of. Obama 08!

Posted by: tjames91303 | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

What more proof do we Democrats need that Hillary Clinton is part of the business as usual pay to play politics that we're all so sick of. Obama 08!

Posted by: tjames91303 | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is entrenched in our government, with their big business as usual, tax relief for the rich, destroy the middle class, and don't forget by the rich, for the rich, in favor of the rich. Well, we are in a stand-off. We have a 71-yr old loose cannon pitted against old-school lobby money or the people's choice. I think I'll choose the people's choice this time around, so my grandchildren can have a chance oh, to be president someday. Remember when being president was actually something ordinary people could wish for and maybe attain? I want that dream to once again become a reality. I want Nancy Pelosi to stand her ground and make sure the will of the people guides the Super Delegates - Hillary go back to the senate and pass another mundane bill - maybe a stamp named after Kenneth Starr.

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister:

How about if he's given the VP spot?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

When your fundamental democratic right is stripped from you because of conflict with calender dates you have to wonder how much power should the DNC have and how to we erraticate that power. Every vote should be held in the highest esteem and counted. We just lost 4000 persons in Iraq is support of that fundamental belief.

Posted by: wackyclaudia | March 26, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

ephemerella: "That, my friends, is why you don't bully, abuse and harass the party centrists. Fanatical party extremists who trash the centrists risk moving them toward the other party, whereas disappointing the party fanatical extremists just moves them out of the election."

I'm a "typical white person" white 47-year-old male party centrist, not some wet-behind-the-ears college freshman, and I'm plenty pissed off by the nonstop sleaziness of the Hillary campaign and the trash they've hurled at both Sen. Obama and his supporters. I've been a loyal and active Democrat since 1978. Don't think for a moment that because Hillary has the support of the machine that she's somehow representative of the center of my party. She represents the entrenched and largely corrupt pols of her generation and their attendant special interest groups, period. That's precisely why she needs to go.

"The Dems have zero chance of winning with any meaningful margin of Clinton's centrist supporters upset at Obama's campaign or the Democratic Party's treatment of her.... On the other hand, there is a reasonable shot at a win if Obama's left-wing and black supporters sit out the general election!"

You play well with theoretical equations, but you're living in a dream world if you think Hillary can "steal" the convention via using superdelegates to override the choice of the pledged delegates in Denver. If that were to occur, a huge majority of blacks would rightly see it as illegitimate and would refuse to support Clinton in November.

Go back and check your history. The Democratic presidential nominee hasn't carried a majority of the white vote since... what, 1976? Hillary, with her huge negatives, won't do it this fall either. Our occasional presidential victories have come as a result of consistently huge black turnout for our candidate. If you think the Dems can win an election where the convention has in essence told African Americans that they might as well stay home because we don't need their candidate or their votes, then you might as well just declare McCain the winner tonight, because that's how November will turn out.

I swear, sometimes I envy the Republicans. At least they don't seem to get ulcers over the incessant illogic of their own members. They just put aside their differences and focus on beating the tar out of us.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

aristotle1980 - I totally agree. I know Hill was told not to run in 04 and told to wait. I also know she and the DNC had no idea the people would rise up and put a stop to old-school politics. I'm sorry she has had what she considers her "right" to the presidency taken away, but the reality is that the presidency is a privilege and to get there it is by the will of the people, not the will of insiders. Nancy Pelosi knows it and we do too. Corruption behind the scenes is one thing, but to bring it out in the open and try to sell it to the American people is repugnant and goes against everything this country is suppose to stand for...

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

jcdw, I guess from your comment you believe the Cornyn measure to condemn the infamous MoveOn.org "Petraeus/Betray us" ad was a necessrary and valuable use of time?

Posted by: flyntstuff | March 26, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Donna - I beg you - do your homework and look into the Clinton past. Grand Jury testimony - Travelgate - Clinton Library donations - Senate record - income over the last 8 years - PLEASE DONNA READ THE RECORD - Hillary Clinton is NOT what our country needs - the GOP will win if she gets the nomination. Let's dissect your reasoning here - leadership, she walks in Bill's shadow...tenacity, she cannot win unless she steals the nomination...intelligence, power by whatever means necessary...problem-solving ability, lie and then call that lie a misstatement then spin, spin, spin against your opponent to deflect the lie...solutions, get her lobby money backers to threaten the speaker of the house...No Donna, Hillary Clinton is the worst person to lead our country. SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOU, ME, THIS COUNTRY, HER PARTY only about winning and now that she is not winning, she'll destroy you, me, this country, and her party...Sorry, but I want a better future for my grandchildren...

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"), Time magazine recounts the
incident that occurred in the fall of 1995, "when
Republicans, in fresh control of both houses of Congress,
were fashioning such tort-reform legislation. President
Clinton, trying to position himself between the GOP and
liberal Democrats as he prepared for his 1996 reelection
campaign, alarmed the trial bar with talk of compromise...
"At the time, Clinton and Gore had committed themselves
to raising $3 million for an end-of-the-year burst of
campaign TV ads. On November 28, 1995, Gore flew to
Houston for an intimate fund-raising dinner ... His guests
included attorneys who have made fortunes representing
individuals claiming harm from asbestos, tobacco and
other products.
"Two days la
by a Democratic National Committee staffer, Erica Payne,
suggesting ter, the vice president was given memosfollow-up calls to some of the Texas lawyers
who attended the dinner.
"Among the names was Walter Umphrey of Beaumont,
who made his fortune suing asbestos manufacturers and
was the lead lawyer for the state of Texas in his suit against
the tobacco industry ... The memo suggested asking
Umphrey for $100,000 to help pay for the TV buys, noting
that 'Walter is closely following tort reform.'"
Two weeks later, party staffer Payne sent a similar
memo to DNC chairman Don Folwler. According to Time,
the memo contained a script for Fowler to use in his call
to Umphrey:
"Sorry you missed the Vice President: I know [you] will
give $100K when the President vetoes tort reform, but
we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible."
Flowler's lawyer claims, "Don does not recall placing
the call to him, talking to him or seeing the call sheet."
Although Umphrey did not immediately contribute, Time
reported:
"He waited until the tort reform bill reached a crucial
moment--the day the legislation went to Clinton's desk.
His firm, Provost & Umphrey, contributed $7,500 on April
30, 1996. The President vetoed the legislation two days
later, May 2. On July 17, the firm gave another $30,000 to
the DNC, with $10,000 more coming in the fall."
Shortly after President Clinton vetoed the tort reform
bill, which would have limited excessive monetary awards
in personal injury lawsuits, Umphrey and his "Tobacco
Five" cohorts collected $3.3 billion in legal fees in their
lawsuit against the tobacco industry.
Instead of openly contributing to candidates, a la the
Gore episode, Umphrey has concentrated on channeling
more than $300,000 through various obscurely named
Texas PACs. Such efforts blur the true origin of the
money, making it easier for many candidates to accept
because it lacks the controversial "trial lawyer" taint.
Umphrey has given Democratic Party candidates and
party-affiliated PACs in Texas with $1,141,030. This total
does not reflect the hundreds of thousands of dollars he
contributed to national Democratic Party candidates and
party PACs.
Walter Umphrey Read and wonder what the Clintons are really all about

http://whttp://www.txtriallawyerwatch.org/PDFs/HTI_03_ch3 .pdfww.txtriallawyerwatch.org this is where I found this interesting info about the Clintons interesting read if nothing else.Shows how donners get paid back big time

Posted by: bennie1 | March 26, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow this just gets better and better. First, this election has brought out the real qualities of leaders like Hillary Clinton. Exaggeration, Over hyped claims, divisive politics, and more.
Ladies and Gentlemen, do you really think that trusting someone who shows the same characteristics as George Bush ought to be in the White House ever again?
Can you really say that Hillary Clinton is worth trusting with the most sensitive times in this world.
She lied about Nafta but that came out after Ohio. She has again managed to take the attention off this by speaking about Rev Wright. Amazing! One old man says something in a fit of anger and you hang onto that. But a saner person lies so many times and there is no response.
This is not the time to close your eyes and behave like a petulant child. Take a good look at the child next to you. Can you seriously vote for someone who lies all the time and tell your child with pride that you would side with a liar or would you rather stand with someone who says that he is an individual with his own views.
I am so fed up with Hillary Clinton, I am going to start a campaign where in I am going to ask people to start calling their 'Flip Flops' 'Hillarys'.
Back off now and you just might have a nation left where every person who was born equal and every person who will be born equal feels that and not something else. And, in this democracy nobody is entitled to the Presidency. Nobody. When that happens, you stop breathing free air.

Posted by: aristotle1980 | March 26, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania is "With the program" and watch them vote. Senator Clinton will win because of her leadership, tenacity, intelligence, problem-solving ability and solutions for ALL Americans, not just the "typical" white person as Obama says.

Posted by: donna | March 26, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

The wealthy power brokers (20 or 2000) or the 1 million Obama supporters. Barack has done an end run around the political establishment and they're in a state of panic.

What's so difficult to understand? The voters want to end politics as usual. They want to end the culture wars. They want to be involved in solving the Real Problems all Americans face, not the hyped crap fed to them by the corporate controlled media.

Give it up Hilary. Remember what you and your manager said about Mi and FL???

HRC said on 10/10/07 on New Hampshire Public Radio's show, "The Exchange:
NHPR: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I''m off the ballot?"

"It''s clear, this election they''re having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said.

Top Clinton campaign advisor Harold ICKES:
As a DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member, he voted last year to strip the two states of their delegates as punishment for moving their primaries up too early, "to prevent the gaming of the system."
Now he supports seating the delegates. "When I voted on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, I did that as a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, not as a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign."

Clinton campaign advisor Terry McCAULIFFE argues for seating the FL and MI delegates. But in 2004, as head of the DNC, when MI threatened to hold an early vote he said, "Move your primary too early, and Michigan will lose half its delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention. The closest they''ll get to Boston will be watching it on television," he vowed. "I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules."

So, the rules are the rules. No to MI and FL.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 26, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

You go Nancy - kick those money-men out of your view. Not this time folks - we are at a crossroads - big business backed politicians vs. the people's choice. I am for the people and now that we have some transparency (thanks Barack) and the internet to keep us informed about who is pulling whose chain - we can put a stop to this insanity. Come on Pennsylvania get with the program - SHE CANNOT WIN UNLESS SHE STEALS THE NOMINATION - the people have spoken...OBAMA 08.

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Well, Pelosi did get it right, like or not, it is true: "it will be harmful to the party if superdelegates don't support the pledged delegate winner."

Amazingly, we now have one of the candidate's top donors THREATENING Pelosi: Endorse Hillary's view or we're pulling our money from the party.

Sounds very much like blackmail to me.

Shouldn't Hillary Clinton (or any candidate loyal to the party) continue to urge their supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives, regardless of the outcome of the nomination?

Posted by: marnie_bowen | March 26, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

We all know Obama has no problem repeating other people's words, but he has no solutions, i.e., #1. In all of the debates when asked any question of any substance his response was always and I quote "I agree with Hillary.."#2. His speeches apparently were mostly takes from other politicians, i.e. speech from Gov. Patrick Duval and others#3. All of the ideas (God forbid) he took for over 20 years from his mentor-Uncle-Pastor Wright. What we have yet to see are any specifics. It is becoming clearer and clearer that he has NONE!!!!!

Posted by: donna | March 26, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic! They think they can threaten their way to getting Hillary nominated? What chutzpah!

Posted by: paltmaie | March 26, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Hubris, arrogance and stupidity organized by BET gangster peddling Bob Johnson trying to intimidate the Speaker of the House of Representatives (third in line for the Presidency) over the Clinton couple's campaign debacle. Nancy did not get off the bus yesterday and will systematically dismantle this tribe of money wielding hooligans in short order.

Posted by: terrybrady | March 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Wealthy donors or Oprah, sorry "Oprah, Inc." Democrats must choose.

Posted by: Mandelay | March 26, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

tkarol3 - See, the same thing happened in NV - the OLD SCHOOL Billary people tried to "Fix" the caucuses - thus loosing delegate slips for the "other candidate" - the party knows who's trying to steal this nomination sweetie and it isn't Obama. I was part of the caucus audit here in NV and funny thing - all the Billary info was neat and tidy in every precinct file...go figure...but the info for the "other candidate" was missing or only partially there. You see, SHE was suppose to win Super Tuesday and none of us would have known about what went on "behind the scenes" - well, she DIDN'T WIN and now we have to have a convention redo - why? Because the MACHINE is using everything in it's dirty, filthy, lying, cheating scorched earth, mud-slinging, rich-backed arsenal to NOT bend to the will of the people. Old school, entrenched and obviously dishonest politicians want to keep the status quo. Go ahead and vote for her - hope she sics the IRS and the FBI on you like she did in Travelgate...

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-self, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-self.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college vote that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 26, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

I cannot tell you all how many Archie Bunker rust belts I've talked to over the last year who have NOT taken the time to look into the true history of Billary. PA it's your turn - wise up and do your homework. Undecided delegates DO THE RIGHT THING, for once in your lobby-money grabbing, Pork-allocating, greedy lives. THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT THAT WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

To all you Obama lovers heres a video proving Hillary being shot at by snipers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

Posted by: rollpop999 | March 26, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

It's obvious why these people wrote to Nancy Pelosi -- she won't listen to the ordinary citizens who have already tried to contact her, only those who might influence her position within the party. Hillary would be better off as an Independent at this point. I called the DNC today to tell them Obama's national campaign called me in Texas saying they were desperate for delegates at the convention this weekend, and even though I wasn't a delegate or alternate, since I had caucused could I come to the convention to support him. I explained that my precinct had plenty of Obama delegates and they said other precints did not and they would just "put me somewhere, so please show up."

They actually thought they were talking to my mother, because I AM a delegate and know the rules, while she isn't (but was willing to be one for Clinton). When I called the DNC, the woman I spoke to was very rude and said there was nothing they could do, just to call the campaign, and that the DNC didn't care what they did. I said I would call the media as well, then. She said fine. I called the Texas Democratic Party, and the person I spoke to there said absolutely what was Obama's campaign did was against the rules and his national campaign would know it (I didn't tell them which candidate it was, at first, until they wanted to know so they could contact them). They listened and said they would try to stop them from making these calls. It is obvious Obama is running dirty politics, and the DNC is doing nothing about it. I'm glad the local level is at least trying. I have no respect for the DNC now at all. Howard Dean should step down, as should Nancy Pelosi. Those big spenders should use their influence to get someone else who actually cares about equality into positions of power. That is why I am an Independent.

Posted by: tkarol3 | March 26, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton mafia will do anything to curtail the democratic process in this election. Twelve wealthy people get to say what Nancy Pelosi should say or do? What about the millions of people who have already voted in the pimaries. How come these twelve bundlers get to decide the outcome of the election?

First of all these 12 lobbyists are probably expecting billions in kickbacks once Hillary takes office. That itself is one reason why Hillary should not get into the white house. Clinton's desperation is showing in many ways.

She is going after Obama's pastor issue even after the rest of the country have put it behind.

Hillary is emphasizing that the so called pledged delegates do not mean anything to her. She wants them to jump ship and cast their vote for her in Denver.

Now she is using her wealthy bundlers to threaten Nancy Pelosi.

What gives? Hillary would rather see McCain in the white house than another democrat.

Hillary is the Tanya Harding of politics and Bill Clinton is jeff Geluly.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | March 26, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

How stupid was that move. Hillary donors are the true elitist. What do these people think their money buys power and influence. Oh yes were dealing with the Clintons. This is the kind of politics that has to stop!!!! If HRC manages to swindle the nomination from Obama I'm changing my party to Independent.
I wonder if those of us who have donated less than $200 to Obama campaign should sign a letter and send it to Nancy demanding that this type of politics not be tolerated. What do you guys think?

Posted by: fmlndn71 | March 26, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

No more on Rezko because THERE AIN'T NOTHING TO REPORT - Chicago Tribune would have done so. And since we are going to look at the facts - Will Bill be on house arrest at the White House if he is convicted in the Peter Paul Election Fraud case??????? That trial begins in California this November - wonder if that's before or after you all elect his wife? And since she is a witness for the prosecution - does she get immunity as President or will the case get thrown out on a presidential technicality? And what about our fearless wanna be leader hanging out with a convicted felon like Peter Paul anyway? Why isn't the press pursuing that relationship?

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Clinton should be pushed out of the Democrats; she has done more damage to the party in a few short months than any Republican could have done; her selfish wants come before all else...GET RID OF HER- SHE'S A LIABILITY AND WOULD BE ATTACKING ANY ONTHER NOMINEE IF THEY WERE BEATING HER...GET RID OF HER- SHE'S A MENACE.

Posted by: pathina | March 26, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and her wealthy cohorts are destroying the Democratic Party. What is the leadership waiting for? What are the super-delegates waiting for? Time to man-up and line up behind Obama!

Here is a couple of interesting articles:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3628100.ece

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004303769_clinpublicans25.html

Pelosi has shown good judgment and she needn't be concerned about the implied threat from this group of extortionists. We have already seen the power of the grassroots that has out raised their candidate. The attention of this grassroots will next go to Congress and the Senate.

Posted by: Sirack | March 26, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for posting the letter...

Superlawyer Marc Aronchick is Hillary's finance co-chair;

Clarence Avant: During the 1990s, Avant played key roles in President Clinton's presidential campaigns and currently serves as Resident Jamaican Trade Counsel.

Sim Farar: in 1999 was named by then President Clinton as U. S. Representative to the Fifty-Fourth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Sim Farar of California, also served on the President's Advisory Committee on the Arts to the John F. Kennedy Center. And in February of 2007, this mega-fund raiser hosted a reception for Hillary Clinton.

Chris Korge: Coral Gables attorney and businessman, Chris Korge built a multimillion-dollar fortune as a lobbyist. He hosted a $4,600 per person reception for Hillary Clinton at his Lakeside mansion in March of 2007.

Marc Lasry is one of the pioneers of the distressed securities market,and is Founder and Managing Partner of Avenue Capital Group. Chelsea Clinton was hired as an analyst for Avenue Capital in 2006.
Lasry is a top Clinton backer who in 2007 through an affiliate of Avenue Capital, UWS Acquisitions, sought to evict 89 families from their dwellings. As market rate tenants, Avenue Capital had the legal right to ask the distraught families to leave within 30 days. A spokesperson for the article which appeaared in "City Hall" on May 15, 2007 said that: "Any legal notices that were sent to tenants were delivered in a time frame prescribed by law..."
Again nary an Obama supporter in this bunch.

Posted by: pulakimo | March 26, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Petelly - stopped smoking doobies right after the Dem convention in 1968...were you there? I was and if you think that convention was a disaster - remember Nixon won - then just wait till HILLYBILL steals this nomination - hope McCain chooses a great VP...it's gonna get ugly folks. Super Delegates take note - 1968 is not worth repeating - it's taken this long to come up with a candidate who is actually honest. Of course, there was Al, but FL made sure Bushy won that one - maybe that's what's wrong - America has no more short-term memory - so let's all gather round the campfire and sing a song of praise for liars, cheats and the American way...

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Chicago1:

I hear that Cindy Sheehan is running against Pelosi ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Integrity and Obama - I think not. By the way, does anyone know what the latest is with his long-time compadre, Tony Rezko?

Posted by: donna | March 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Is there no relief from the disaster that is Nancy Pelosi, crazed San Francisco flake? On the very day Obama became toast in the general election, she goes on TV to say this.

If the role of the superdelegates were to reflect the vote, Kennedy and Kerry would be for Clinton, the winner of their Massachusetts votes. (Two more flakes.)

If they have any role at all, it is to pick the candidate who can win a general election. That candidate is not the left liberal Obama.

People like these named are the reason we have held the White House only 12 of the last 40 years. L-O-S-E-R-S.

Posted by: Chicago1 | March 26, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

SO if Obama is made "unelectable" by Senator Liar then we get 4 more years of the GOP - I hope not. We are bankrupt now - anyone want to take a stab at learning Chinese? We are now in debt to them for how many billions? Thanks GW - don't you just love having a C student running our GOVT - no, wait, let's have Ms. Menopause run things - yeah, that's what I want - leaders in the Middle East will kick her to the curb. Well, maybe not, since Bill has been wheeling and dealing over there since he left office - where the heck do you all think that 5 million she loaned her campaign came from - her book - I DON'T THINK SO. So, we are faced with the same decision - old school or new school? Lying vs. honesty? Divisive government vs. transparent government? PAC/Lobby $$ vs. NO PAC/Lobby $$? Corruption vs. Integrity? I choose the latter...

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

FL & MI will just go to McCain then.

Not that the democratic nominee had much of a chance in FL anyway.

It'll could be a landslide in both for McCain.

Posted by: JGJ2010 | March 26, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

You've got to be kidding, right?
Is the Clinton mafia that powerful that they can unilaterally dictate they be in power? Time to save the Democratic party from the Clinton machine before it's too late. Al Gore and John Kerry need to step up and back Pelosi on this. I would not be surprised if Hillary ran as a third party candidate if she doesn't get the nomination thus cementing the Clinton legacy. I am curious to know exactly what promises Bill and Hillary made to the donors, including those who contributed to Bill's library.

Posted by: bfjam | March 26, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

FL and MI did not have their say. I don't believe there was an election, where the majority of Floridians and Michigans told their party to move their primary.

Posted by: PeteIlly | March 26, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Hey Frillymail, put out the doobie!!

Peace!

Posted by: PeteIlly | March 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Nanci Pelosi wants to elevate the honoring of all state party primary scheduling rules over allowing votes to be counted, when it comes to MI & FL, but then they want to honor non-MI, non-FL votes above party delegate rules when it comes to how the superdelegates are supposed to vote (in this election only, apparently).

What hypocrisy! I'll start a Hillary Supporters for McCain campaign, if Pelosi keeps up this blatantly hypocritical, biased and internally inconsistent pattern of rule-making and rule-breaking favoring Obama over Clinton!

Who does Nanci Pelosi think she's kidding with these swallowing-of-camels-and-straining-at-gnats? You can't let the superdelegates' established roll be subordinated by established voting patterns by citing "let voters decide" in a campaign season when millions of voters were expelled from the process.

They have to either let FL, MI delegates go to Clinton or make all superdelegates vote how their states voted!

Posted by: ephemerella | March 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"FL and MI certainly deserve their say, no matters what- it is only democratic."

They HAD their say. They said that they wanted a primary that violated their party's rules. They said that even though they were warned that their delegates wouldn't count that they would conduct a primary anyway. And NOW they say that they were disenfranchised by somebody ELSE?

Feh.

Posted by: egc52556 | March 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Hello people, why do you think that they are called superdelegates? They are not tied to the electorate. They are there to insure that the candidate that is nominated can WIN the general election. Well guess what? OBAMA CANNOT WIN AGAINST MCCAIN IN NOVEMBER!!!!!!!!
He is UNELECTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: donna | March 26, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Somebody, anybody - get a grip here. If Hillary had won 11 in a row Obama would have been sent back to the senate before the end of February. Why is the DNC, Pelosi, Reid and all the other Big Time Dems allowing this woman to sling spaghetti, the kitchen sink and whatever else her lying mouth conjures up at all of us? Dragging Obama through the mud is a waste of time - vetting my bu** - No, this is a case of old school don't want to let go of the rope!! Time for a change in politics - this keeps up, we'll all be run by another GOP, only this one is a loose cannon. And don't hold Obama responsible for something someone else said. I don't hold Hillary responsible for her disbarred, adulterous husband's remarks. I do hold her responsible for lying to me on a daily basis though. She steals this nomination and I become an independent...she makes me physically ill. I am a child of the 60s and know that when WE THE PEOPLE get together change can happen - you're seeing it before your eyes. The party candidate vs. the candidate of the people, by the people and for the people. Hey Hill - let's see those tax returns & the donor list for hubby's library...now there is fodder for the media...

Posted by: frillymail1017 | March 26, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

WOW, what's that the Godfather part IV?

Clinton donors "warn" Pelosi on Superdelegates!!! Sounds rather ominous, doesn't it?

Posted by: marnie_bowen | March 26, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Great comment regarding Centrist Democrats!!!

Posted by: PeteIlly | March 26, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Great comment regarding Centrist Democrats!!!

Posted by: PeteIlly | March 26, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is proving herself - horrible for America. I've never voted against the Dems in the General... if she steels this I will absolutely vote her DOWN.

Quit Clinton - Forget your pathetic ego.

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 26, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

There are key points that the Democratic pundits commenting on outcomes fail to mention. The people who are trying to railroad Clinton out of the race for the nomination are sabotaging Democratic chances in the Fall.

Today, they say an embittered 19% of Obama's supporters won't vote for Clinton if she is nominated, while an embittered 28% of Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama if he is nominated. They also say that Clinton supporters indicate a willingness to vote for McCain over Obama. But what does that mean in terms of impact on numbers this Fall, since Obama's supporters are left-wingers and blacks who are unlikely to vote for McCain if they despise Clinton, but many Clinton supporters are centrists, and are quite able to vote for centrist McCain if they despise Obama?

Obama's blacks among those comprising the 19% of those Obama supporters who wouldn't vote for Clinton, won't go out and vote Republican. This is also true for the left-wing ivory tower whites and college kids that comprise his white voter base. Assuming that Obama's lefty voter blocs, including newly registered college kids don't vote Dem this Fall, it's extremely unlikely that they will vote Republican. Thus, the 19% of Obama's base who won't vote for Clinton, if they follow through, would just provide the Republicans with about an 8% margin since Obama is down under McCain with about 43% in current the national polling. Thus the damage those 19% of Obamat's hardened Clinton-haters can do at most an 8% margin of damage, if they all follow through and sit out the election or vote for Nader.

However, centrist Clinton's 28% are far more likely to vote for centrist McCain instead of doing what Obama's 19% are likely to do if they follow through and sit out the election. That means the Dem party's 28% drop will be then added to McCain's column, thereby doubling the effect of Clinton defections. Let's say 1/2 of Clinton's 28% sit out the election as Obama's 19% fanatics say they would do, and 1/2 vote for McCain, and that Clinton's at about 46% below McCain in national matchup polling today. Clinton's centrist supporters who vote for McCain would shift the margin to his favor by (.28/2)*(.46)X2 = 13%. Plus there are the other 14% who sit out: (.28/2)*.46 = 6.5%. There would be a 13% + 6.5% projected shift in the Dem v. Republican votes, or 19%.

Thus if we assume all of Obama's left wing and black supporters would follow through with their threats to not vote for Clinton, it could impact the Fall election by a projected 8%. If only half of Clinton's centrist supporters follow through with their threats not to vote for Obama and sit out the election while the other half votes for McCain, then we see a 19.5% shift in McCain's favor.

That, my friends, is why you don't bully, abuse and harass the party centrists. Fanatical party extremists who trash the centrists risk moving them toward the other party, whereas disappointing the party fanatical extremists just moves them out of the election. The outcomes of upsetting Clinton's Dems has more weight in terms of downside risks than the weight of Obama's Dems, in their impact in the general election if they are pissed off.

I can tell you that if the Dems force Clinton out without the MI, FL delegates seated, I have little doubt Dems will lose more than 28% of her supporters, especially in the key states of MI, FL.

The Dems have zero chance of winning with any meaningful margin of Clinton's centrist supporters upset at Obama's campaign or the Democratic Party's treatment of her. If a group of Bill Richardson-aligned superdelegates get together on Memorial day and force her out without giving her a chance to try to seat the MI, FL delegates at the convention, her polarized Dems will be outraged.

On the other hand, there is a reasonable shot at a win if Obama's left-wing and black supporters sit out the general election!

Posted by: ephemerella | March 26, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Of course Hillary's supporters wrote the letter, because HRC's campaign would not benefit from Pelosi's argument.

But lets get serious, if Obama was in the same position as HRC, he wouldn't be leveling the same argument?

As to all these liberal commentators that are involved in this discussion, as a supporter of HRC, (and trust me, I'm not a fat cat) I am upset by Pelosi's argument. I feel that my efforts have been cheated these past couple of months; and I am sure Obama supporters would feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot.

Posted by: PeteIlly | March 26, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I agree tha the Superdelegates should wait and vote for whom they choose, BUT notice who wrote the letter - Hillary's supporters, not Obama's.

Posted by: smcdonal1 | March 26, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi never said they HAD to vote that way, just that they should, if they want their party to survive.

The Church of the Apocalyptic Kiwi has been pointing this out since Feb. 22:

"The first thing to remember is that if one candidate has more elected delegates, more popular vote and more states won, but party members select the other candidate, they will destroy the Democratic Party. After all, why should rank and file members of any political party stay with a group that overrides their votes and feelings?

There would be no viable explanation for such a move and it would turn off all of those voters who thought they could believe in the Dems to listen to their collective voices.

And smart money says it would lead to a landslide for John McCain."

Posted by: apockiwi | March 26, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS THIS A STORY???

A bunch of wealthy donors of Clinton writing the Speaker of the House of Representatives to chastise her for comments she made???

Speaker Pelosi, as do other elders of the Democratic Party, see the harm in continuing this destructive primary. There is no way in he** hillary can win and by keeping the fight alive, she is splitting and splintering the Democratic Party which gives McCain the advantage in November.

I think it says a lot about hillary that her ego and ambition will not let her stop her campaign -- even though she is risking having another Republican as President. That reeks of conceit, unfounded arrogance, a distorted sense of entitlement and political ambition run amok.

Posted by: winoohno | March 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS THIS A STORY???

A bunch of wealthy donors of Clinton writing the Speaker of the House of Representatives to chastise her for comments she made???

Speaker Pelosi, as do other elders of the Democratic Party, see the harm in continuing this destructive primary. There is no way in he** hillary can win and by keeping the fight alive, she is splitting and splintering the Democratic Party which gives McCain the advantage in November.

I think it says a lot about hillary that her ego and ambition will not let her stop her campaign -- even though she is risking having another Republican as President. That reeks of conceit, unfounded arrogance, a distorted sense of entitlement and political ambition run amok.

Posted by: winoohno | March 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

If there's huge campaign money involved, there is no doubt weak-sister Pelosi will be more responsive than she has been to the two-thirds of Americans who want the war to end and countless others who have called upon her to impeach the international war criminals Cheney and Bush.

Money talks. Pelosi's supporters and contributors could help America if they had the same conversation with her regarding Cheney's Christian Oil Crusades.

She needs to resign now or be recalled for treason.

Posted by: coloradodog | March 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

To Rose: Despite what Hillary Clinton's responses regarding MI and FL are, in a tight and important election, don't you think that an agreement should be made allowing them to vote? Of course, Hillary wants MI and FL to vote because she needs pledged delegates; Obama does not want MI and FL to vote, because it may give HRC delegates. Each candidate's position states their own political interests. My concern, however, is, regardless of who is the Democratic nominee, will FL or MI be inclined to vote for the party that denied them suffrage in the primary? Does the Democratic nominee have a chance to win the Presidency without carrying these two very important states?

I could care less what HRC and BO are saying, their reponses are typical of their interests. My question to Democrats is, if MI and FL are not allowed to vote, will this cost the Democratic nominee the presidency?

As Democrates (no HRC or Obama supporters) what do you think?

Posted by: PeteIlly | March 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

There you go, Obama's campaign contributions come from over a million democratic voters while Clinton's campaign contributions come from a handful of fat cats trying to keep her in the race. Can the system be any more corrupt than this!

Posted by: personal109 | March 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

People: Check the comments on Dan Balz's story about McCain's foreign policy and economic positions. One of the first posters there is our old friend "JakeD," whooping for McCain.

"JakeD" is a Republican shill. Pay no attention to his pious blather about "count every vote" re: Hillary. This is Limbaugh-like cross-dressing.

Posted by: jm917 | March 26, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I wish someone would combine the video of Hillary saying that everyone agrees that MI and FL won't count at the beginning of the campaign and follow with her recent laughable revisionist historical statement that she left her name on the MI ballot to give the voters a chance to vote. She always wants it both ways and listening to these two sound bites together just might convince people what a liar she is. I wish I had access to both clips which I have heard separately on cable news.

Posted by: rose | March 26, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Confound her politicks,
Defeat her knavish tricks,
On you our hopes we fix.
Obama '08!

Posted by: jm917 | March 26, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

First and foremost, this election is not over. HRC "earned" the right to keep running in this election with her big wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Indidviduals keep telling her to back out of this race because any chance of winning is futile. With questions arising regarding Obama's character, I believe it would be nonsense if HRC were to withdraw at this point. Also political momentum is never constant, it continually changes. This race is close enough for HRC to stay in.

Also I continue to hear from Obama democratic supporters, that HRC needs to refrain from "gutter politics". Excuse me? Obama's campaign has leveled some pretty sleazy charges against HRC themselves. Why doesn't the DNC direct a statement to both campaigns, asking them both to cool their rhetoric.

I'm concerned that there is a huge double standard taking place in the Democratic Party, which is actually contributing to the partisan nature of this primary. HRC has been called on since February, to refrain from campaigning aggressively, because it may hurt Obama's character if he were the nominee...and this is when Hillary had the lead in the delegate count. I do not hear any calls from the DNC to have Obama refrain from aggressive charges he has raised against HRC that could equally hurt her chances as the nominee.

Hillary should not have to have her hands tied behind her back and duct tape on her mouth by decrees of the Democratic Party. In an election, this is not fair nor Democratic. I would be issuing the same argument for Obama as well, if he were in the same predicament.

The Democratic Party including Pelosi would be best advised to maintain their neutrality until May. The role for the DNC is not to force an outcome (much like Gov. Bill Richardson tried to do), but to enable the primary to continue for the next month, while ensuring both campaigns maintain a level of decency.

Here are my recommendations for going forward:

1. Superdelegates should sit on their hands until after the cluster of primaries in April and early May are over. When the dust settles, then they can begin to state their allegiances. It is still too soon. By some trying to force a conclusion to this primary by picking sides, the SDs are actually making this primary more partisan and acrimonious.

(Just for the record, I do not believe if Obama has, lets say a 50 vote pledged delegate lead, in June, that this serves as a precedent that Superdelegates have to vote for Obama. That's nonsense!!. Superdelegates are independent and were designed to be that way. If Obama maintains or increases his delegate lead, then yes, I would concede that it would be unfair / and undemocratic for SDs to vote with HRC. With a race this close, however, and with many more states yet to vote, the Pelosi argument at this time is absurd.)

2. During Superdelegate neutrality, the Democratic Party should be urging both campaigns to cool the rhetoric. This includes Obama's campaign's charges of McCarthyism and Blue Dress snafus. The DNC needs to start holding Obama's camp accountable for their rhetoric as well.

3. Find a way to have MI and FL vote in the primary. It is not their fault that the State Party violated a rule. Suffrage should not be denied. A cross-caucus / primary (Like Texas) can be used, which will play to both candidates strengths. It will cost money, but it will be one hell of an investment to the voters of MI an FL showing that the DNC cares. These states are just as susceptable for voting Republican in the General Election because they were snubbed in the Dem primary.

The DNC needs to adopt a cool-headed approach. An extended primary will highlight both candidates to the remaining states, keep them on the Front Headlines, and continue to generate excitement among the electorate. The DNC should play the role of the referee, call for a dignified debate, and at the same time use this extended primary to build a plan for improving congressional majorities.

The DNC needs to step up!

Posted by: PeteIlly | March 26, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

So this is Hillary's end game? If these donors (a.k.a. influene purchasers) really care about the Democratic Party, then let them _persuade_ people with compelling reasons rather than extortion.

I'd like to know how much money these people have contributed, in comparison the the money that Obama has raised in this election season. Why do none of the stories report on this crucial fact? If they have contributed in the hundreds of thousands, let them take their money and go start their own part where donors to the PARTY think they can pick winners and losers in elections.

By the way, how do these so-called supporters of the Democratic Party feel about a Democratic Candidate - Hillary - meeting with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the print equivalent of Fox, that printed stories that the Clintons had Vincent Foster murdered? This itself speaks volumes about Ms. Clinton's lack of character, or lack thereof.

Posted by: jimstrom | March 26, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Here's 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

(reposted from http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php)

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

JakeD makes the laughable statement that 'Let the Votes Count.' Are you for real???

Let us see, 24 people think that their opinion should be put ahead of the delegate count derived from the POPULAR vote and they are the ones letting the votes count?

The contradictions are endless. Clinton complains about MI and FL voters being disenfranchised but pledged delegates not following the votes of their constituents somehow does not disenfranchise their votes???

And you say 'Let the Votes Count'? Please tell me you 'misspoke'!

Posted by: JTGazza | March 26, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

JakeD makes the laughable statement that 'Let the Votes Count.' Are you for real???

Let us see, 24 people think that their opinion should be put ahead of the delegate count derived from the POPULAR vote and they are the ones letting the votes count?

The contradictions are endless. Clinton complains about MI and FL voters being disenfranchised but pledged delegates not following the votes of their constituents somehow does not disenfranchise their votes???

And you say 'Let the Votes Count'? Please tell me you 'misspoke'!

Posted by: JTGazza | March 26, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I hope Speaker Pelosi throws these fat cats out on their ears. How dare they try to tell her how to do her job. The Clintons are amazing -- after doing their best to destroy the leader in votes, states and delegates (and, yes, folks that IS Barack Obama) they now send their moneyed thugs out to break Speaker Pelosi's kneecaps? Get lost ... Speaker Pelosi, these ogres are a dark reminder of politics in the 20th century -- go talk to Sen. Obama's internet coordinator to see campaign financing in the 21st. It's one thing to have party elders come together to try to get a solution to a problem created by Mrs. Clinton's refusal to read a delegate map, quite another for her to "send in the clowns." Mrs. Clinton, I believe I hear a fat lady singing ... and please take this garbage with you on your way out.

Posted by: Omyobama | March 26, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I would also like the letter and its signators posted in its entirety. I find the comments of all the posters very interesting.

Posted by: pulakimo | March 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow...to think sweat shop mentalities thrive in our country and become rich and powerful...at least enough to try and give orders to Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker of the House.

Posted by: pulakimo | March 26, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and if you don't recognize the name Bernard Schwartz, he was the former head of Loral Space & Communications Inc., the firm that was allowed to transfer restricted satellite and missile technology to a People's Liberation Army front (you know, the Red Chinese military) after contributing a record amount of cash to President Clinton's 1996 campaign. No big deal there either, I guess.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and if you don't recognize the name Bernard Schwartz, he was the former head of Loral Space & Communications Inc., the firm that was allowed to transfer restricted satellite and missile technology to a People's Liberation Army front after contributing a record amount of cash to President Clinton's 1996 campaign. No big deal there either, I guess.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Just so you don't think Robert Johnson is the only snake in this bunch:

"In 1967, Tompkins Buell and Jane Tise co-founded the Plain Jane clothing label. Plain Jane was making $2 million/year by 1970. Tompkin Buell's new husband Douglas Tompkins recommended changing the name to Esprit. Clashes with the existing partners of Esprit led to a buyout in 1975. By 1986, the global clothing brand had reached $800 million in sales. The Tompkinses divorced in 1988.

"Esprit de Corp. was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have illegally interrogated and intimidated $2-an-hour Chinese workers, and then to have shut down a factory to keep them from unionizing. The Department of Labor found that an Esprit contractor doctored payroll records and refused to pay overtime."

"After her 1989 divorce from Douglas Tompkins, Tompkins Buell led a 1990 leveraged buyout that allowed her to gain control of Esprit, and also earned her a profit of about $150 million. The buyout left Esprit deeply in debt. In two years it went into technical default on its outstanding loans and in 1997, Tompkins Buell relinguished all ownership of and involvement in the company to a consortium of investors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susie_Tompkins_Buell

The entry also notes that Buell is often referred to as Hillary's "best friend." I wonder if they share the same sentiments where labor relations and financial responsibility are concerned?

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

The rich Dems are trying to hijack the process with an extortion threat, huh? Pelosi needs to "man up" and tell them to go pound sand (and take their checkbooks with them). What part of Nancy Pelosi's position they failed to understand. Hillary can't and won't win without cheating. The super-delegates better not get bamboozled into supporting a loser like Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: meldupree | March 26, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Nickyle..I did not compare Clinton to Nixon. I said that they both undermined a basic structure of democracy. And though not for the first or last time, some of that is beginning to appear in this election. I suggest you read books on how Lyndon Johnson won his senate seat or how John Kennedy won the Presidency with the help of Richard Daley, for some recent examples. And yes, I was around for watergate and have been a voter since 1964.

For information, the Nixon era involved a President that was not popular with the people or his party in spite of his landslide victory in 1972. We lived in a more moralistic time and the Republican party was conservative in that sense. Republican Party leaders like Howard Baker went to him and told him that he did not have their support. Maybe he chose the honorable path and resigned rather than put the country through an impeachment trial.

Clinton lived in a less moral climate of the 1990's and Democratic leaders did mot want to push a President popular with voters out of office. He preferred impeachment. Different times, parties, and different character. Just a couple differences if you want to compare the two events.

Posted by: patrick2020 | March 26, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Having reached sevety something in age doesn't make a person wise. Having 50 kids doesn't make a couple the best parents on earth. Having the ability to lie to people and deceive them doesn't make a person the best for the presidents job.

I agree, McCain has some good ideas, and sometimes he is able to worth with members of both parties.
He sometimes seem to care about the people of America. But his idea of using force to solve all problems is something that most people will not agree with. If that was the case, then we should spank the hell out of all the kids that misbehave; we should beat the hell out of the schoolyard bullies. Any objections?

Hillary is a congenital liar, and she does not care about the people of America. She only care about getting herself prestige, power, and money. If she was a decent human being, she would not have slandered her competition, and would not have thrown mud on her opponents (she continue to do so). If she was a decent candidate, she would have commended her opponents on their wins; she would have stayed away from demeaning and marginalizing her opponents wins and congradulated them instead. If she was a decent and truststworthy candidate, she would not have lied about her sniper-fire trip to Bosnia.

That leaves one candidate, who stood up in the face of attack from McCain and Hillary. On that topic, I give more respect to McCain because he did not try to drag Obama through the mud. He challenged Obama to take public funding, but he did not tie Obama to the back bumper of the truck and drag him on the road, which cannot be said of Hillary. Even though Hillary and her husband invited to white house the same pastor, whom the Clintons are portraying as demon, they have no shame in pouring tar over him and talk trash about him. Clintons proclaims to know the pain of Blacks and Latinos, but it matters only when they are about to go to the polling booth. I, for one, will not vote for a liar. I don't know about the rest of America.

Posted by: Dave27 | March 26, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The Nafta Flap is all over the blogs now because it seems that it was one of Sen. Clinton's Camp that made the comments. It is simple enough to verify how true this is. Anyone can search the web and determine how credible are the sources that are now chastising the Clinton Camp for keeping quiet as to this. The Canadian Press Service (apparently Canada's equivalent to our AP) reported that: Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Stephen Harper, was talking to journalists last week: "Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-Nafta voters that carried economic implications for Canada." It quotes a witness who reported Brodie's remarks: "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt ... That someone called us and told us not to worry." If the above is as the original sources say, then it wasn't Sen. Obama who lied.

Posted by: pulakimo | March 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

FAT CHECK: READ HILIARY'S REPORT. SHE SUPPORTED AND HELPED PUSH NAFTA THRU. I AM MIXED AND I LOVE ALL OF MY HERITAGE. WHITE AND BLACK BUT WHAT'S RIGHT IS RIGHT. AND WHAT'S FAIR IS FAIR. HILARY IS LOOSING AND SHE IS TRYING TO REALLY HURT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ASK YOURSELF nickyle BE HONEST. I UNDERSTAND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO VOID FOR OBAMA BUT YOUR GIRL IS BEHIND AND SHE SHOULD RESPECT THAT. IT'S TIME TO GO AND GET MCCAIN!!! THAT'S HER ENEMY!!! RIGHT???

Posted by: barbarafmason | March 26, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

nickyle: How is it that cherry-picking a Rasmussen poll here or a Gallup poll there strengthens your arguments?

The CNN and RealClearPolitics "poll of polls" both show Obama leading Clinton (though by small margins). Also, over 90% of Obama's donations are from individuals donating small amounts, almost all of them through www.barackobama.com. Finally, he's approaching 2 million donors. By comparison, John Kerry hit 1 million donors just before the 2000 Democratic convention.

Now, for some hard, non-fluctuating numbers. Obama has won 30 of the 44 primary contests held to date. He holds a lead of over 700,000 popular votes, and about 160-170 pledged delegates (different sites have different counts, but that's the range of the gap in pledged delegates).

Does Clinton have a mathematical chance? Yes. However, what follows is the only reasonable scenario in which she can overtake the pledged-delegate lead. (This is NOT an original analysis. CNN's John King spent the better part of half an hour at his "magic wall" on the night of the Mississippi primary trying to come up with a path to the pledged-delegate lead for Clinton.)

(1) Give Obama the three remaining Western primaries by 55-45 margins, as he's done very well around Oregon, Montana, etc.
(2) Give Clinton all the other remaining primaries (except PA, FL, MI) by 55-45 margins.
(3) Give Clinton PA by 65-35 margin.
(4) Get FL and MI to re-vote.
(5) Give FL and MI to Clinton by 65-35 margins.

Then, she takes a lead of under 20 delegates.

If this scenario comes to pass, I will have no problem at all with Clinton being the nominee. The problem is that this idea has more holes than a Kwame Kilpatrick legal argument. Shall we review?

(1) Clinton has carried only two states with more than 60% of the primary vote. Those would be New York and Arkansas.
(2) In MI, where Clinton had to beat back stiff challenges from Chris Dodd and "Uncommitted", she still only carried 55% of the vote.
(3) In FL, where Clinton had a massive advantage due to greater name recognition (which is all that mattered, since there was no campaigning), she still only carried 50% of the vote.
(4) In PA, Clinton has the support of the governor, the state Democratic Party chairman, the mayor of Pittsburgh and the mayor of Philadelphia. Plus, she and her campaign have been all over the state, while Obama's appeared here twice. She still shows only 15-16% margins in current polls.
(5) Oh yeah....Obama's up 10-12 points in North Carolina and 2-3 points in Indiana.

I have no problem with Clinton staying in the race, and I have no problem with her touting herself as the superior candidate (what else is she going to say?). However, her only hope is praying for more political bombshells - and is all too happy to drag Obama into the mud with her while she waits.

The audacity of hopelessness, indeed. This is a "strategery" that, ultimately, can only help John McCain.

Posted by: blitzburgh64 | March 26, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Stick to your guns, Nancy! Tell these fat cats where they can stick their big bucks. We will back you with money and votes.

If this is part of the "Tonya Harding" strategy, are these guys "Sean, the knee-capper?" Or was that Carville? I guess that makes Bill Clinton "Jeff Gillooly," which fits.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | March 26, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton is the energizer bunny of deceit: She just keeps lying and lying and lying and lying and lying. It just never ends. Fact it. You didnt misspeak.

Hillary Clinton is to misspoke as Roger Clemens is to misremember.

Posted by: n2itiveus | March 26, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

FACT CHECK: Obama did not know about the Canadian meeting when asked. It was not an official meeting. You can't knowingly lie when you don't have the information.

FACT CHECK: Canadian representatives mention that Hillary Clinton's campaign made the claim.

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton said that NAFTA was good for America and cheerleaded for it.

Posted by: n2itiveus | March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama has gotten contributions from bundlers such as the. They are shown at opensecrets.org.

At this point in the race, the internet traffic isn't all that surprising. I'd expect it to change as it goes along. I know I have hardly visited any of the candidates web sites, I expect many don't. They are pretty much just PR and there is plenty of ads around I don't have to go searching for them.

Nixon was crazy, and corrupt. I am sure he had his good points too, but it wasn't running a government.

Carter wasn't as honest as people view him. Much more has come out since his Presidency, even the last few years that raise real questions on his honesty. Again, he has much to be said for him, but he is not as honest as I thought he was at the time.

McCain is not planning on running with Bush, McCain has his own platform. In fact, as far as foreign policy he seems to make more sense then the other candidates.

The Democrats should handle the super-delegates the way they have been handled in the past. It shouldn't be changed for this election.

Posted by: win1 | March 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

And with that beautifully executed swan dive, the Clinton campaign has lept off the cliff into insanity. Can she look more desperate - "If you don't let me have the nomination, Richie Rich and company will stamp their feet and walk away! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA..."

I thought she had things sewn up in Pennsylvania and ready for a comeback...

Posted by: LABC | March 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

FACT CHECK: Hillary has acknowledged she was wrong about the Bosnia story of the landing.

FACT CHECK: Obama LIED about his campaign meeting with the Canadian government on NAFTA. Obama has never admitted his false statements about that, but rather attacked Hillary on NAFTA. Ohio did not believe him.

Posted by: nickyle | March 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of Esprit and big-time fund raiser for Hillary Clinton.
Robert L. Johnson created BET - Black Entertainment Television. May 13, 2007, Mr. Johnson wrote a piece in the Washington Post calling for "African-Americans to support Liberia like Jewish-Americans support Israel". January 17, 2008, he sent this apology to Sen. Obama: "I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail."
Bernard Schwartz of Loral space and communications is a friend of the Clintons. Before Hillary he was a good friend of Bill's. In fact, then-President Clinton feted Schwartz on his 71st birthday at a White House dinner.
Steve Rattner is an American venture capitalist. As of 2004 he is founder and managing principal at private investment firm Quadrangle Group and is one of Hillary's biggest booster.
No, you won't find nary an Obama supporter among those names.

Posted by: Gina | March 26, 2008 04:39 PM

Posted by: pulakimo | March 26, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

dude, everybody knows that fatcat votes count more than regular folks votes. i don't even know why they bothered to write that letter.

Posted by: octavio | March 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I have heard Obama DIRECTLY say "sexist" things several times against Hillary... and Obama has made dumb stereotypical comments like "typical white people."

So what does "color" have to do with NAFTA?

Posted by: nickyle | March 26, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

FACT CHECK: Hillary lied about sniper fire in Bosnia, about there being no ceremony, about having a corkscrew landing, about her going to the dangerous places that Bill would not go to, and is still lying by saying she misspoke.

Can we get just one foreign policy achievement that everyone agrees she is responsible for?

Posted by: n2itiveus | March 26, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Dear Fat Cats -

Piss Off.

Love,
Nancy

Posted by: tpsteele | March 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow... comparing Bill Clinton to Nixon... pretty far-reaching (almost as bad as the McCarthy comment). Apparently, you were not around for the Nixon era. I recommend you read any of several books by John Dean to get a full picture about Nixon's activities. Nixon did not just ATTEMPT to obstruct justice... Nixon in fact did OBSTRUCT JUSTICE many times... why do you think he resigned?


Posted by: nickyle | March 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The blinding audacity of Senator Clinton's high roller donors is astounding. They should not be allowed to dictate to Nancy Pelosi or the DNC the outcome or the procedures by which the presidential nominee is selected. These fat cat donors want to subvert the voters of the U.S. who are participating in primaries and caucuses and expressing their preferences.

Clinton's rich backers want to buy the nomination for her since she cannot win it the honest way, by garnering the most delegates or states or popular votes.

Pelosi should flatly reject the request of these underhanded Clinton supporters and then she should publish the names of all who signed on to this attempt to use their blackmail threats to subvert the democratic process.

Posted by: dee5 | March 26, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand you guys with Hilary. What's wrong with Obama being ahead. Obama did not tell Michigan and Florida to move their democratic race!!!! Michigan and Florida. I also don't understand why you guys are angy with Obama for what Rev. Wright said. Yeah, he went to that chuch for 20 years, soooooo. Have you heard him say racial things, NOPE!!! You have heard him try to embrace ALL AMERICANS. You know people's true COLOR'S are really starting to show!!! OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA.....DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT HILARY AND BILL PUSHED NAFTA???? DO ANY OF YOU KNOW THAT THEY DID THIS AND YOU WANT TO SAY THAT HILARY IS YOUR PICK. COME ON!!! I GUESS THE COLOR DOES HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT BECAUSE YOU WOULD RATHER GO BROKE AND KEEP LIVING BAD BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO SELFISH TO SEE WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG!!! SAD.... IT'S SO SAD!!!!!

Posted by: barbarafmason | March 26, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama's version of the "truth" is also not acceptable to many. All candidates can be "caught" in their version of "truthiness."

Posted by: nickyle | March 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton = Tonya Harding

Posted by: davestickler | March 26, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

There are some events in politics that are more dangerous than others because they go to the very heart of a democratic government. Nixon undermined the Presidency by attempting to obstruct justice. As much as you may love Bill, his unnecessary perjury undermined the judicial system. (He could have refused to answer or told the truth)

Now you have a few individuals trying to undermine the election process. This has gotten beyond dirty tactics and maybe a federal agency should begin looking into what is occuring, as unfortunate at that might be.

Posted by: patrick2020 | March 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Uh...comparing Hillary to Adolph Hitler only hurts your cause... sieweke. Along with the rest calling Hillary "stupid" etc. as well as denigrating anyone that supports Hillary only further pushes Hillary supporters to NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

FYI... Obama has wealthy donors also. You better check the facts, because if ain't all grassroots. From the LA Times... $6.03 million from the securities and investment industry for Sen. Obama.

Posted by: nickyle | March 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, I was discussing that Mr. Obama has the largest amount of delegates, has the larger amount of popular votes, and he has won the largest amount of States.

Now, this argument eventhough still valid, it is is irrelavent.

The argument is that Mrs. Clinton ' Has a difficult relationship with the Truth' (from the book a Woman In Charge).

People with this type of anomaly cannot be the President of the United States of America.

Posted by: PCM011 | March 26, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

PS - democrat more than not - I voted for Carter - he may not have been the best choice but he was an honest person.

I would vote for anyone other than dishonesty. It doesn't take a brian surgeon to see dis-honesty, a very narrow platform, and a political lack of integrity.

Posted by: hal.e.berger | March 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha ha.

Few millionares are threatening Pelosi to back away from trying to save the party?

Now that is funny.

They should look at the millions of low income people supporting Obama with whatever they can, and beat the funds raised by big bucks that sucpport Hillary.

Hey millionares, no matter how much money you have, you only get one vote.

If Nancy Pelosi is running for president, I would support her. But not Hillary "sniper-fire" Clinton. Not in a million years.

Posted by: Dave27 | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary SUCKS and SHE WILL NOT under NO circumstances win the general election and the DNC knows this. They are between a rock and a hard place because most of them are Clintonian's loyalists and are afraid to cross the Clintons. Richardson was the only one with the balls to do...Edwards is still waiting to see who wins and then he will jump on the bandwagon which explains why he is a three time looser! All of those dumb blue collar white men who supported him got shifted because he isn't out there advocating for them like he was when he was running his campaign. He's a rich trail lawyer who spends $100 for a haircut. Those blue colar workers could use those $100 to buy groceries. The DNC is not dumb. They know that the repubs can't wait to get their neocon hands all over those Clintons in November.....and they will remind America of the entire 90's and the Clintons....not just the good old days, the entire saga! Then McCain/McBush will be in the office for another 8 years, 1,000's women and men will continue to die in Iraq! Hell they will implement the draft and the poor and middle class sons and daughters will be force to fight in a senseless war, more folks will loose their homes, jobs, social security, we won't be any safer.....and the funny thing is that folks will get what they deserve. Just like those idiots that voted Bush in for a 2nd term got just what their votes bargained for. So keep being fooled and gullible with Billary and McCain will win....because believe me there is more than 19% of Obama supporters who at this point in the game will not and refuse to vote for Clinton and because they would Never vote for McBush, they'll stay home!!!! It will be a wonderful Day!! The a*** holes will get exactly what they deserve. As far as I am concerned, Obama should quit this b.s. and go make millions and leave these racist retards to deal with whatever happens!! Hell he is smart enough, a Christain and God has blessed him with an awful lot...stop trying to help these dumb a**, let them get what they deserve! I wouldn't give a damm about these dumb a**!!! Leave them to deal with McBush and Billary! Let the best dog win amongst those two!!! America doesn't DESERVE Obama!!!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 26, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary SUCKS and SHE WILL NOT under NO circumstances win the general election and the DNC knows this. They are between a rock and a hard place because most of them are Clintonian's loyalists and are afraid to cross the Clintons. Richardson was the only one with the balls to do...Edwards is still waiting to see who wins and then he will jump on the bandwagon which explains why he is a three time looser! All of those dumb blue collar white men who supported him got shifted because he isn't out there advocating for them like he was when he was running his campaign. He's a rich trail lawyer who spends $100 for a haircut. Those blue colar workers could use those $100 to buy groceries. The DNC is not dumb. They know that the repubs can't wait to get their neocon hands all over those Clintons in November.....and they will remind America of the entire 90's and the Clintons....not just the good old days, the entire saga! Then McCain/McBush will be in the office for another 8 years, 1,000's women and men will continue to die in Iraq! Hell they will implement the draft and the poor and middle class sons and daughters will be force to fight in a senseless war, more folks will loose their homes, jobs, social security, we won't be any safer.....and the funny thing is that folks will get what they deserve. Just like those idiots that voted Bush in for a 2nd term got just what their votes bargained for. So keep being fooled and gullible with Billary and McCain will win....because believe me there is more than 19% of Obama supporters who at this point in the game will not and refuse to vote for Clinton and because they would Never vote for McBush, they'll stay home!!!! It will be a wonderful Day!! The a*** holes will get exactly what they deserve. As far as I am concerned, Obama should quit this b.s. and go make millions and leave these racist retards to deal with whatever happens!! Hell he is smart enough, a Christain and God has blessed him with an awful lot...stop trying to help these dumb a**, let them get what they deserve! I wouldn't give a damm about these dumb a**!!! Leave them to deal with McBush and Billary! Let the best dog win amongst those two!!! America doesn't DESERVE Obama!!!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

When I ask you, WHEN - is the American public going to get fed up and have enough of the Clintons and their filthy kind of gutter win at all costs politics?

Dirty politics, well it is what it is, but there is a limit.

Dyansty politics should not exist in the USA - 8 years is the Presidents term limit - we never expected it shoul dhave been a family limit. It was not our founders intent to have one family rule for 12-16 years. Especially a greedy self interested fmaily with their own personal agenda.

Posted by: hal.e.berger | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Wow, they don't even try to hide the threats. They and the Clinton campaign certainly belong together.

In what is supposed to be a democracy these putrid people represent the lowest of the low.

WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ALL THIS? The Clintons will die before they back down, bringing great destruction.

Posted by: jamesmb | March 26, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I am almost positive that Richardson was promised a chance as Vice-Presidential candidate (The Nation editor surmises such and she is an Obama supporter) instead of Secretary of State as many in the media guessed.

So if Richardson believes he can influence the race and also call for Hillary to drop out... well he met more than his match with Carville... who probably destroyed Richardson's vice-presidential candidate potential with the "branding" of him as a traitor.

Posted by: nickyle | March 26, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I can not see the desaster to USA if Hillary Clinton now steps down, as her real chance is about 5%.
Why is she fighting with FL MICH voters, superdelegates, Pelosi, the Kennediey, Richardsons, Kerrys and next the Edwards's the Gore etc etc etc.

Does she believe, only she and her husband can solve the problems? Does she really think this way?

If she has still some part of her brain left intact, she must anticipate that stepping down with grace is much better than writing history as the parties divider and a supporter of the GOP.
Many Germans now fell sorry for her, it will end desastrous. NEVER EVER WILL THE PARTY DELEGATES VOTE AGAINST THE VOTERS WILL.This is common scence!!!
Now, after all tries, all changes in style, themes, subjects, outfit, smearcampaigns, negative talking etc etc now she is sending her Lobby friends.
That sounds like Adolf Hitlers wonder weapon he wanted to use winning the war in March 1945!!! Eventually, everything was in ruin, he's gone.

Posted by: sieweke | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"superdelegates" are there for a reason; if they were just supposed to follow the other delegates, they wouldn't be needed at all

Posted by: listats | March 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

It looks. It all supports Obama Claim. I think after all it supports OBama. It is not a good move. It tells only those rich people Like Hillary ... and forget the other ordinary people. Just Hillary...... I think they miscalculated it and strngeth obama. Dozen people chose whatever they want and ignor the rest of the people

It is killing Hillary

Posted by: kibiret | March 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Why should remain neutral?

Since when has the speaker of the house not had a candidate? I hope she gets some guts and shows her strength.

What the hell is going on?

Posted by: whistling | March 26, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Why should remain neutral?

Since when has the speaker of the house not had a candidate? I hope she gets some guts and shows her strength.

What the hell is going on?

Posted by: whistling | March 26, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Post the names of the Wealthy Donors so the favors that Clinton owes them can be vetted.

Posted by: dan | March 26, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Since when does rich Lobbbyist and special interest groups get to tell the Democratic National Committe what the he** to do?!!! Hillary has lost her everlasting mind....how stupid can she be....It is obvious that his woman believes that she should be crowned the nominee regardless of anything and anybody....Nancy Pelosi, AL Gore, and Jimmy Carter had better step up to the plate and check these rich a** holes real QUICK!!! The superdelegates will not over throw the will of the people and if they do, the party will pay DEARLY!! That's a fact!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Since when does rich Lobbbyist and special interest groups get to tell the Democratic National Committe what the he** to do?!!! Hillary has lost her everlasting mind....how stupid can she be....It is obvious that his woman believes that she should be crowned the nominee regardless of anything and anybody....Nancy Pelosi, AL Gore, and Jimmy Carter had better step up to the plate and check these rich a** holes real QUICK!!! The superdelegates will not over throw the will of the people and if they do, the party will pay DEARLY!! That's a fact!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Just goes to show that the democrats are far from democratic. Who cares about voters? let the big money contributors decide the nominee.

Posted by: maricopajoe | March 26, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey... Obama supporters... These wealthy donors are members of the Democratic party... and those mentioned here happen to support Hillary. Are all of you members of the Democratic party? Doubt it from the comments.

FACT CHECK... Recent Rasmussen poll had Democrat support for Hillary at 74% and Obama at 67%.

And who do you think funds all the Democratic candidates? Do you really want to make the Democratic a Populist Party? History lesson... the Populist Party went belly up in the beginning of the 20th Century because of lack of support of "wealthy" donors.

Obama supporters want to throw anyone overboard that supports Hillary. So much for Obama bringing the country together. What follows is the impact of Obama scorched earth policy....

FACT CHECK: New analysis from Gallup's daily tracking data (compiled from 3/7 through 3/22) finds 28% of those who support Clinton in the Democratic primary would vote for McCain if he were pitted against Obama in the general election, while 19% of those who support Obama in the primary would vote for McCain if he were pitted against Clinton (Pollster.com)

Posted by: nickyle | March 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I get disgusted when I see people in the media, people who support Obama, trying to influence the race.

The same goes for a Bill Richardson or Nancy Pelosi. It is not Hillary Clinton who established these ridiculous primary rules of proportionality and caucuses.

Obama supporters are all for the rules until the rules goe against them.

Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat who is electable!

Posted by: FredCDobbs | March 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I would really like to see this letter. Sounds very partisan, presumptuous and arrogant!

Anyway, who cares about big donors? Obviously, they aren't helping the Clinton's very much.

Anyway, isn't this what campaign finance reform all about?

Posted by: sstepney1 | March 26, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Wow! I have always had the impression that wealthy donors donated the Republican party. Who knew that extremely wealthy Democrats would allow the party to self-impode?

This does not bode well for the Democratic Party having wealthy donors "threaten" some type of fundraising boycott. It makes the Republicans look better. Very dumb move by Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert L. Johnson, Bernard Schwartz, Maureen White and Steven Rattner.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 26, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi should remain neutral, nope as a part leader shes in charge with keeping the party together, and as a responsable leader, she should as she has been doing, stepping in to keep her, her being that ruthless sleaze known as Hillary, in line.

Posted by: breww21 | March 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

This doesn't have any thing to do with wealth or power, just common sense. Due to her position, Pelosi should remain neutral. In addition, eventually she will have to explain why super-delegates like Bill Richardson, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry went against the "will" of their state's voters to support Obama? Can't have it both ways folks!

Posted by: carol.sd | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

If I were Nancy Pelosi I'd tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine. If they don't like the Party affiliation, they can walk out the door. Of course, their realm of influence will also be curtailed. Replacement for their money, Obama can get it from his $5, $10 donors in a month. Get rid of the trash and then we can have a real Democratic Party.

Posted by: DeboG | March 26, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Golly, I am sooooooo Glad, that it is the RepubliCAN Party, that is CONTROLLED by the WEALTHY.

I'd hate to think I supported a Political Party that did NOT have Immensely Rich and Powerful Entities in CONTROL of it!

You Poor Dimocrats and all your impoverished supporters! :-(

I'm so glad I am with all those influential and wealthy Businessmen in the GOP! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow! How ridiculous is that?!?! I guess they are not so happy that Hillary's has wasted all their money. She's in debt. Her primary campaign is broke. She just figured out how to raise money on the internet last month. So much for "experience".

If Nancy Pelosi goes back on her word, it will be a sad day for the Democratic Party. Nancy don't bail out Hillary's failed campaign and the people who lent her money. Hillary is not too big to fail.

Three words: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. McCain passed it, but it took Obama to revolutionize it.

FL and Michigan will be seated. It just wont benefit Hillary. She herself agreed, and we have the video tape on that too, that they don't count. Does she have ANY integrity? Does she even know what that word means?


Posted by: n2itiveus | March 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Clinton, baught and paid for by interests, not suprised, the sleeze just is incredible with these people

Posted by: breww21 | March 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Here we go.... Special interest group. Is the Democratic party is going to be swayed by special interest.
"Do not listen to the will of the people"- But listen to me because I am special interest

Nothing wrong in having civil elections but no 'Tonya Harding' Option

Posted by: Subramony | March 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

buckwheaton1--Well said. Hillary Clinton is what my parents marched against.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Superdelegates were meant to serve as tiebreakers. But, there is no tie. Obama will win more states, more votes, and more delegates. If the superdelegates supersede the will of the people, the race will end in a tie. Stop being such worrywarts, Democrats! Make a decision and stick to it!

Obama 2008, strength.

Posted by: scharb | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

It's funny that the man who brought us all of the wonderful videos of black women being degraded and all the black people jiving on BET has the gall and the temerity to tell Nancy Pelosi how the election shoud turn out. Funny how the man who got on a stage and slandered Barack Obama can tell the rest of us with his money what we should be doing. Funny how a man who never once promoted anything educational to help people in this country can tell people what they should be doing. This is why come November John Mc Caain will be president. These people do not get it, that is why the party is about to implode.
And this is from a black woman who thinks that Bob Johnson and his crew can take their money and shove it. I am so angry, how dare they.
Obama 08!

Posted by: debra_gw | March 26, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I hope Nancy Pelosi explained to those Clinton donors that it would be inappropriate for them to attempt to buy an election. Extortion is generally frowned upon. The DNC doen't need their stinky money.

Posted by: KrisB9 | March 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

There go the lobbyist again, controlling our democracy. Bob Johnson you're a traitor for this. This explains a lot about why our culture is the way it is.

Posted by: mooremoneypower | March 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

The notion floated upthread that in some way Obama is unelectable is complete codswallop, requiring a dream-like ignoral of the popular vote throughout his campaign to date. The only force that could possibly make him unelectable is organized hatred, passive-aggressive racism, or some ninny-driven slander campaign with no respect for truth or equity under law. In short, lizard-think.

His integrity, his intelligence, his understanding of issues and his ability to lead people is head and shoulders above any other candidate in the pool today, in either party. IMHO, it is time for the hate-mongers to shut down their noise machines and let the process roll in a civilized way.

I understand this is wishful thinking, but it would be nice.

Posted by: amos1 | March 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Jed L. Babbin: Sen. Obama has zero experience in anything related to running this nation. He's never held an executive position in government or industry, and his record in both the Illinois legislature and the US Senate is so thin as to be transparent.

For incompetence, I'd include his ducking and running from tough votes. Last year, when Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) offered a measure to condemn the infamous MoveOn.org "Petraeus/Betray us" ad, Sen. Boxer offered a Dem substitute that watered it down into meaninglessness. Obama voted for the Boxer substitute and - after that failed - absented himself from the Senate and didn't vote on the Cornyn measure at all.

Oh, and he was one of only about 29 who voted against the bipartisan Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill last fall. 'Nuff said?

Posted by: jdcw | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Rise above all the junk, leave the bickering behind. Obama 08:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7s9ubMQX7WE

Posted by: lexi1 | March 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

This move was so stupid, perhaps unconsciously, they are really trying to help Obama. Or, they are so impressed with their wealth and being kow towed to, that they really think Nancy Pelosi will fall over in a swoon and give em what they want.

Posted by: maddymappo | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

This move was so stupid, it sounds to me like they are Obama supporters.

Posted by: maddymappo | March 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Wealthy Donors v. Regular People. The Democratic Party must pick.

Posted by: buckwheaton1 | March 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

1984, how appropriate.

Posted by: scharb | March 26, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I really do not understand the Clinton donors objecting to Nancy Pelosi's absolutely transparent and democratic statement that the super delegates should follow the opinion of the people and the majority of super delegates.What her critics seem to demand an oligarchy , not even translucent, which would ride rough shod over popular will. Shucks.

Posted by: chust70yahoocoin | March 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

If the letter is available, can it be posted?

Apart from the merits of the argument, why do wealthy donors feel they can step in and intervene in the party's internal workings? Should the amount of their donations give them greater say? What does this say about the way the Democratic Party works?

Just reinforces the argument for campaign finance reform, and for a form of campaign donations-- pioneered by Dean and Obama-- less reliant on wealthy donors.

Posted by: mj64 | March 26, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

davidmwe-Ohhh, they are going to be heard LOUD and CLEAR!

LOL! NO Re-Counts needed Jesse Jokeson! ;~)

THEY are already painting the States Red! :-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 26, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

FL and MI certainly deserve their say, no matters what- it is only democratic.

Posted by: davidmwe | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it OBVIOUS yet who the most brilliant and capable Democrats are.

Forget "Sniper Fire" Billary and her Tax Forms! Forget about G' D' Whitey America Barack Hussein.

"Howling" Dean/ "Ninny" "San-Fran Nan" Pelosi '08

THAT's the Ticket! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 26, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

You know, I have to agree with Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert L. Johnson, Bernard Schwartz, Maureen White and Steven Rattner on this one.

LET THE VOTES COUNT!

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is loving this. Then again, he'll need the head start to get the young and Internet voters;

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
The Google Effect:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=76

Posted by: davidmwe | March 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company