The Pelosi Dustup

Speaker Nancy Pelosi ticked off the Clinton campaign with her statements this week that problems could divide the Party if the will of voters is overturned by super delegates.  Hers is a very real concern.  Democrats are going to be extremely upset if, after going through a long, painful primary process the candidate with a clear majority of votes and pledged delegates loses the nomination.  Nancy Pelosi was stating the obvious.

This is one of those times when I adopt my "other shoe" test.  This test involves looking at an issue from the standpoint of the person standing in the other shoes.  If doing that forces me to change my mind then that means I should rethink my position.  In this case the Clinton campaign needs to adopt the "other shoe" test.  Would they be protesting the Speaker's comments if Hillary were clearly ahead in votes and delegates?  No.

A collection of Clinton supporters including Mark Aronchick sent this letter to Pelosi:

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

This has initiated a firestorm by Obama's campaign whose spokesman Bill Burton issued this statement:

“This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it.  Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives,”

This tit for tat betweens the campaigns is what is angering Democrats everywhere.  Every issue, everything said, is fodder for the back and forth.  With no debates where the Senators can face off and have to face questions and respond directly what we have are dueling press releases.  It's getting old and we still have four weeks left until the Pennsylvania primary.  Will we survive?  Meanwhile I keep applying the "other shoe" test and hope the shoe doesn't wear out.

Comments

[Ben Keeler]

If I was Clinton I would stay in. Win in PA, when a few other states, watch Obama keep sliding in the polls, and then she has a legitmate chance to be the nominee....

[John Morgan]

Hillary's remaining real chance is if Obama does or says something which sinks his candidacy. That could happen of course.

[Diamond]

It is a disgrace when lobbyists are writing to the 3rd most powerful person in America and questioning why she wouldn't allow a bunch of rich folks to steal the nomination. These people are desperate. The Clintons had made behind deals and they're watching it crumble. Who knows? Hillary might've vene wagered her daughter on the nomination.

Haven said that, Nancy Pelosi is answerable to the people who elected her - not a bunch of pot-belly, cigar-piping, cultists.

[John Morgan]

I wouldn't characterize these people as lobbyists, they are very important money people and big time fundraisers for Democrats.

[E]

I say that we don't need 12 people to run the party with their money. Obama has over 1 million donors whom I'm sure would be willing to step up to the plate and match these elitists in funding. Why should our party be run by 15 people who can write $100K checks?

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

E:
Right on. I am surprised John is being so charitable to the letter writers. They think they can control the party. It doesn't belong to 20 rich guys. It doesn't matter whether they used to head BET or fund the Brookings Institute.

[Chris Blask]

Hi folks!

I understand that by this point what I am about to say is a cliche, but sometimes cliches exist because they are true.

What we are seeing is a change from the Old to the New. It has Always Been that the few rich have the power.

That lessened when America was founded (it was the answer to "how can you have power if your Grandfather didn't?").

It lessened further in the entreprenurial days of the Industrial Revolution (where the long-extinct "ugly American" stereotype came from. Self-made millionaires without Pedigrees).

It lessened with the Internet Revolution of the 90s (was it Time Person of the Year 2006, that was "You"?).

Now we are entering the period where the last revolution has matured and is bearing fruit. The Obama Youth Generation grew up with web browsers and blogs, has always had the ability to speak and congregate without needing Powers (recent or Old) to help them.

What the DNC (or very few over 40) does not yet understand is that in this new world the imagined framework of the Founding Fathers comes to fruition.

It does not matter that you have a Club with 12 Rich People in it. That means nothing compared to the power of millions.

In dollars, in votes, in voice, in capacity for action...

I wrote a response to CNN's regrettably ham-handed article on MyBO - and could not email it to them (their little web-box crashed when I tried). I could not fax it (there is only one fax number in HR, that I'm sure is a Black Hole from hell). It speaks to this entire thing that has generated several hundred million dollars for Barack and could (or could not, depending how they handle things) do the same for the DNC.

*This* is the threat to funding that the DNC should consider. *Not* whether a handful of Investors will deign to grant hundreds of thousands apiece - but whether hundreds of thousands will deign to grant a handful of dollars apiece...

With your tolerance, John, I will post that CNN letter here as a Comment, do with it what you will. I think it sums up the situation...

-cheers!

-chris

[Chris Blask]

TO: Rick Sanchez - CNN

FROM: Chris Blask - Obama Rapid Response

Hi Rick et al!

I just watched your coverage of Barack Obama's Internet campaign. Bless their hearts, but your panel just embarassed themselves in front of the entire American population under 45 (and quite a few over) with their complete lack of understanding of modern communication. I got the impression of a group of county elders gathered on a porch trying to give comment on the New Fangled Teler-Fone down at Mable's place and how it "wasn't the same as just goin' down there and chawin' with a man".

barackobama.com is not a "new-fangled Internet thing" - it is a use of communications methods to promote messages and connect people. No different than a printing press and a coffee social - just a billion times more effective. To use geek terms you could say it is "an application of communications technology" - and frankly you folks are, too, so it shouldn't stump your Talent to discuss it - but that is to miss the whole point. I *am* a geek - but a geek who has moved more than $3B worth of hard goods - because I understand that all of this Internet stuff does not matter when it is all about geeks. It matters when my mother (and to her grave at 96, my grandmother) adopt it for *their* purposes - and that is what has happened with Barack Obama's campaign.

Let me give you an example. Obama Rapid Response (ORR) is a group of volunteers who monitor the media - we monitor you - and the opposition campaigns, discuss how to respond to spin we preceive in the media, attacks by other candidates and statements for/against our candidate around the country and around the world, and deliver our message as we see as appropriate to venues and individuals.

Obama Rapid Response was setup by Neil in Vermont almost a year ago. Neil is not a technical person, but he wanted to get involved so he went to barackobama.com and created the group - everything was there for him to do it.

Lisa in Buffalo has trouble getting her caps-lock key off and her browser working, a fax machine and two cats. Lisa is passionate about her candidate, and despite the fact that she knows less about computers than you do about cold fusion, she was part of a team that picked up the Lord Trimble story (that I still haven't seen you folks pick up on) that hit the UK wire late Friday night ET and pushed it out to *every* newspaper, radio station and TV station in Wyoming before the polls opened (here's that story, in case you are still sorting through your lithographs for it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml ;~).

This past week, the site got so much traffic that the email server slowed down. This impacted ORR since emails were not able to get out to the membership fast enough. Without prompting from the campaign (who are understandably rather busy), I created a Google group, dropped the key ORR membership into it and got all of the activity up and going again.

Your panel pointed out how the MyBO site allows volunteers to organize shoe-leather activities - which is true and impossible to overstate the effectiveness of - but their handling of the story underlined the complete lack of understanding of what is going on with MyBO and in fact the entire Obama campaign.

It is not only about delivering bumper-stickers and T-shirts faster (the graphics of which are online and can be sent directly to the printers). It is not just about drawing people to coffee-socials (thousands of which are organized through the site for every primary day, as one small example). It is not even just about enlisting and organizing door-to-door and phone campaigns (those, too: 1.5M calls from people at home to Wisconsin voters, as another small example).

It is about doing everything you've even seen being done by the handfull of people in a campaign office in Docudramas recounting past campaigns with a cast of thousands instead of dozens. It is about creating a center-less operation that enables free people to assume responsibility for themselves and act on their beliefs. It is about implementing on the largest scale the fundamental and foundational beliefs of America, namely:

o That all people are created equal.

o That Freedom of speech and freedom of action are the key to personal, national and global success.

o That Free Enterpise in business and thought enable the Individuals who make up the Population to be more powerful than the established Powers that hold all the advantages out of the gate.

Obama's success is not "cheating" as you asked on the show. Obama's success is an acting-out of the basic principles that underly every success in American history. Obama's success is a re-enactment of the founding of the country, where citizens met and decided to stand up to massively disproportional powers and tradition based on their belief in themselves and in the strength of individual freedom. Obama's success is the tactical and tangible proof that this country is, in fact, based on the strongest set of ideals in human history.

-best regards

-chris

PS - CNN is, oddly enough, the least available media outlet online. All of your competitors provide actual email addresses - for example - not just these silly boxes

[Joyful Alternative]

Interesting, Chris, I have a friend in Nicaragua (who gets CNN) who just complained to me that she's tried and failed three times to send them her letter. I guess they just don't get that new-fangled Intertube thingie.

[Kirk Wentzel]

Because food prices keep rising and my paycheck hasn't I'm afraid that I've eaten my other shoe.

The last one is on tap for Friday's dinner.

[Lee Levan]

Hey Chris. Don't be demeaning all of us over 40 (btw, that includes Sen. Obama). (Hopefully), you'll get there some day.

Kirk, sorry about your menu. I suggest that you go heavy on the condiments. (At least you don't have a subprime adjustable mortgage.) Hang on. Better days are coming (unless, maybe, you're over 40).

[peter]

If these people are so important, how come Obama raises way more than they? John, why don't you raise a real issue: a few rich people are trying to run our primary, blackmailing the Speaker? The Clintons must be defeated.

[John Morgan]

Barack Obama and other major national candidates may be able to survive without these major donors but Senate and Congressional candidates won't. These folks are crucial to our down ticket candidates and, remember, just controlling the White House isn't enough. I'm not being charitable, just realistic.

Yes, Peter, they are trying to throw their weight around, that comes with having enormous influence, which these people have.

Kirk, be glad you can still eat meat (leather). If McCain wins we'll all be eating grass soon.

[Truth]

Yes, there is a plausible path to a Clinton nomination. She absolutely could be the nominee. One problem: if she does what needs to be done to make that happen, she will so fundamentally tear apart the Democratic Party, and so disillusion all these young enthusiastic newbies, not to mention the black voter base, that she will all but guarantee a McCain win in November.

The remaining question is: Is that bargain okay with her? Is beating Obama worth handing the presidency to McCain?

This is where it gets to a true test of character. Her name is Clinton. I'm not optimistic about character.

[Chris Blask]

Hey Lee!

I am over 40 - I'm among the "Old Crowd" trying to keep up with the kids, too. And hopefully that was tongue-in-cheek, there is nothing demeaning about being 45 or 95, but we are what we are. The risk of getting over 40 is that we can begin to lose focus on what is happening today and continue to think it is the "good old days" (which were never as rosy as we recall) and still find ourselves waiting for the milk man instead of going to the store.

And John: I don't think that is true about Senators and Congress. From today (yesterday) forward, they need to look to do the exact same thing that Sen. Obama has. Live in today's world and look to the future. Today's world is not run by the Old Powers nearly as much as it was ten years ago, and in one/five/ten years it will continue to be more run by the kind of folks who have made Sen. Obama more powerful than the age-old Clinton machine.

-cheers!

-chris

[Allen Minch]

Over one million people own Barack Obama's campaign. This is exactly what he's talking about when he says he won't let the special interests and the PACS run the White House. It's "WE THE PEOPLE" not WE THE RICH.

[John Morgan]

You're being very short sighted by focusing only on one candidate and one race. You're new to politics, aren't you?

It's interesting how many of these evangelicalized Obama supporters remind me of Ron Paul's fanatics. I'm seriously concerned about the effect people like Minch will have on independents and moderate Republicans if Obama wins. They could cost us these elections in the fall.

[Allen Minch]

If you're trying to paint me as a fanatic, you're sadly mistaken. I bring up Barack Obama because he does not take money from these special interests. Hillary Clinton and John McCain on the other hand do. Why is it Morgan, (since you've decided calling me by my last name is acceptable) everytime I bring up a valid point with regards to Barack Obama do you attack me, and call me a fanatic? Is it because I'm expressing other views and trying to keep this two sided? Don't you think people can't see through this one-sidedness? Why hasn't Hillary Clinton released her tax returns yet? What is she hiding? Do the people lited above contribute to her income?

[John Morgan]

You and some of your local Obama supporters have attacked me. Some have intentionally spread false information, some accused me of not disclosing information when I already had, had, in fact, done so well before it was even necessary, and have no regard for the truth.

You have attacked me repeatedly in your comments, showing an appalling lack of understanding, for example, about the importance of the major fund raisers who signed the above letter. These financial players are crucial to many of our current Members of Congress who won in 1996 for example. We wouldn't have our current majority in Congress and the Senate without these people.

You cannot simply dismiss them because your candidate is raising money on his own. This is very much the exception to the rule in politics. If you think you can ignore these people and dismiss their importance to the Party and our candidates we'll soon lose our seats and our majorities. Don't be so short sighted. Do you have any idea how many Pennsylvania Democrats would be in Washington without Mark Aronchick? Very few.

The people who signed this letter have influence because they have earned it.

[Chris Blask]

Allen,

I appreciate you have passion for your candidate. Frankly if he wasn't my candidate too I might not intervene, but I have to say that harsh words are not the means to achieve the end Senator Obama is motivating us to work for.

It is a highly pressurized primary race and tempers flare all around - I am not innocent of losing my own - but I ask you to think about what has made Senator Obama attractive to so many like myself who are not Democratic party lifers.

John has weighed in with his opinions and reporting in what seems to me an honest and even-handed manner. If his opinions don't match yours or mine at any given moment, that does not imply that he is in any way ethically less than you or I. In fact, it is precisely this belief in any one person's moral superiority or inferiority that has lowered the tone of politics in this country and that I am in agreement with Senator Obama on when he calls for it to cease.

-regards

-chris

[John Morgan]

One problem with this division is that either side gets offended whenever one criticizes their candidate for anything. They only want objectivity when it comes to the opposition.