Reactions to story from Open Left
Liebercrats?
http://www.openleft.com/ showDiary.do?diaryId=4803
The donors threatening Nancy Pelosi are listed below. I bolded the ones who contributed to Joe Lieberman's campaign for Senate in 2006, when he won reelection as an independent. 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 ... Adding that Haim Saban is the fiscal sponsor of extreme right-wing hawk Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution. ...
Reactions / posts that link to this post
View all reactions »-
Rumbling Superdelegates
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/3/27/111716/889Rumbling Superdelegates by BooMan Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 11:17:16 AM EST First Read reports on dissatisfaction from some superdelegates that are telling the Clintons, both directly and through the media, to chill out. This is hardly surprising,
-
Mike Lux: New Petition Backs Up Pelosi On Superdelegates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/new-petition-backs-up...Cross-Posted at OpenLeft.com. Today, OpenLeft.com and MoveOn.org are co-sponsoring a new petition to Nancy Pelosi, supporting her position on superdelegates and telling her that we'll back her up when she is threatened. Matt Stoller noted yesterday a
-
Who Do You Want To Own Your Candidate?
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/who-do-you-want-to-...The big money people behind Hillary Clinton are apparently not very thrilled with Speaker Pelosi.ÃÂ Pelosi, who recently said that Super Delegates should not overturn the pledged delegate leader for the nomination, received a letter from top Clinton
-
http://www.alternet.org/module/email/?storyID=80613&type=blo...
Share and save this post: Got a tip for a post?: Email us | Anonymous form Get Democracy and Elections in your mailbox! New Petition Backs Up Pelosi's Position on Superdelegates Posted by Mike Lux, Open Left on March 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Today, OpenLeft.com and MoveOn.org are co-sponsoring a new petition to Nancy Pelosi, supporting her position on superdelegates and telling her that we'll back her up when she is threatened. Matt noted yesterday a letter that 20 major donors and raisers to Hillary and other Democratic Party causes sent to Pelosi, upbraiding her for saying that voters ought to actually determine the election. Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with donors stating their opinion about this issue, and I don't blame them for doing it. I'm sure that the Clinton campaign asked them to send the letter, and they are loyal partisans for Hillary, so they did what they were asked to do. But I also think that the millions of us who are smaller donors to this party, who give through MoveOn.org and blogs and ActBlue, should have an equal voice on the important issues with the big dog donors, and we believe that the candidate who wins this election ought to be given the nomination. If the donors and raisers who signed this letter plan to take their money away from the DCCC, that would be a terrible thing, and if that's what they are implying with this letter, shame on them and on the Clinton campaign for encouraging that kind of threat. But, if they do take their money away, I believe those of us signing this petition can more than make up the difference through our collective efforts. More importantly, it will be up to us to make sure that the actions of a few do not change the course that Speaker Pelosi and our House members have been fighting for. Please sign the petition here. AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own. AlterNet Home » Post Tools:
-
Lincoln Bucket Big Shots
http://thetmexperience.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/lincoln-buck...Taylor ‘McCain Democrat’ Marsh: Supporters of the first viable female candidate in U.S. history appreciate Clinton’s “Lunch Bucket” Big Shots for standing up to the DC Democrats’ darling, the Obama blogs, and the Teflon candidate who gets away with daily character assassinations, while talking out of the other side of his mouth about “another kind of politics.” Thanks to you all for taking a stand. Someone besides us had to. Oh yeah, real working class folks: From John Aravosis at Americablog: It looks like some gifts just keep on giving. At least 6 of the 20 big Dem donors who are now threatening to exort Nancy Pelosi on behalf of Hillary slept in the Lincoln Bedroom while Bill and Hillary were in the White House. (We only have the list of who slept in the bedroom during four years, i.e., half, of the Clinton presidency. Some reporters need to ask the Clinton campaign if anyone else on this list slept in the Lincoln Bedroom.) You’ll recall that some 831 or so special friends of the Clintons got to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom during four years of the Clinton presidency (that’s about 4 a week, every week, for 4 years). You would think that this is the kind of bad publicity that Hillary’s little band of extortionists wouldn’t want. Well they’re going to get it. Here’s the list of big Dem donors who are now threatening the party if Pelosi doesn’t cave to their demands and help Hillary - the ones in bold [ed note: red]are Lincoln Bedroom guests, per CNN (CNN only has the list for 4 years):Marc Aronchick Clarence Avant Susie Tompkins Buell Sim Farar (CNN says a “Sym” Farar stayed in the bedroom) Robert L. Johnson Chris Korge Marc Lasry Cathy Lasry Hassan Nemazee Alan Patricof Susan Patricof JB Pritzker Amy Rao Lynn de Rothschild Haim Saban Bernard Schwartz Stanley S. Shuman Jay Snyder Maureen White Steven Rattner Stoller also notes that nearly half of the group donated to Lieberman’s Senate campaign. Update: Cali-Tejano has a nice write up on this one too!
-
The Great Disconnect
http://d-day.blogspot.com/2008/03/great-disconnect.htmlI don't but all of this "I'm-a gonna leave the party and vote for McCain if my candidate loses" stuff. It's something people say in the heat of battle but rarely is there actually follow-through. I don't remember a ton of reporting about George Bush's nasty primary campaign causing McCain voters to switch to Gore, which was picked up in some post-primary polls, so this is also a media creation, something to pontificate about. And for her part Hillary Clinton is not interested in doing that kind of damage to the country. After the primary it'll be both the nominee and the loser's job to unify the party against the Republicans, and I have little doubt that they'll be able to do it. Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite. “Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.” “It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.” The crowd applauded loudly. At the rank-and-file supporter level, I think the damage will eventually be minimal. At the fat-cat big-money boy and girl level, I think they will consider an Obama nomination something of a betrayal. The Clinton campaign did not disavow their big-money donor "shakedown" letter to Nancy Pelosi because they really do think they own the party, as some rich people tend to think about a lot of things they try to purchase. These are people who enjoyed the DLC types in the party helping them out with their businesses and their taxes, and they remain loyal to even the Lieberman fringes because they've paid for those types of politicians for years. Chris Bowers had the sharpest post I've seen on the primary in quite some time. While it's not perfect (I think a lot of the unelected superdelegates are merely activists, using my experience in California as a guide), I think he's hit on something. The 2008 nomination campaign has generated quite a bit of talk about internal divides in the Democratic Party: young vs. old, wealthy vs. working class, African-America vs. Latino, male vs. female, etc. However, for my money, the most interesting divide by far remains the full-blown activist class war that the nomination has revealed. A changing of guard is taking place in the Democratic Party, and it might not be long before the entire Democratic Party leadership is transformed. Consider the current delegate counts from primaries, and from superdelegates who currently hold public office: Primary delegate totals: Obama 1,081.5--1,063.5 Clinton Supers who hold public office: Obama 99--96 Clinton Tight as a glove. The "public" portion of the Democratic nomination campaign shows Obama only narrowly ahead of Clinton, and the campaign in a virtual tie. However, now look at the delegate totals for caucuses and for supers who do not currently hold public office: Supers who do not hold public office: Clinton 150--110 Obama (58%-42%) Caucus delegate totals: Obama 334--190 Clinton (64%-36%) While publicly elected officials and primary voters are virtually split between the two candidates, the Democratic Party leadership heavily favors Clinton and the highly engaged activists who keep the party's electoral engine running heavily favor Obama. This divide between the party leadership and the rising, activist base points strongly toward an ongoing battle in the party that online we have deemed "the silent revolution." While the other demographic divides listed above have longstanding cultural legacies that go well beyond a single election or political party, it is truly shocking to see such a huge gap between a party's leadership and that party's most dedicated activists. At least in theory, these are two groups of people who should be on the same page. They're not because for too long, the Democratic Party's leadership was defined by past victories from the Clinton years. And that leadership is simply wrong for the historical moment. The Obama ground campaign, like the Dean campaign before it, is going to bring in a whole new class of leaders and activists who will be able to outwork and outmaneuver an ossified leadership class. The fat cats with the $10,000 checks for the DCCC are irrelevant in this environment. Obama raised $175 million or something and barely touched them. A more informed, more engaged political culture is going to demand transparency and put an end to unelected elites controlling the party. It's not going to happen overnight, but like Bowers said, this disconnect is both striking and untenable. It's pretty gratifying to be on the right side of this for a change. Tomorrow I'll be driving up to San Jose for the California Democratic Party convention to witness the silent revolution in action. I ran for and snagged a spot in the DSCC in 2007, and I see a concerted strategy by the progressive grassroots to make more inroads into the party leadership. This includes running progressives in seats where they will be able to appoint party officials, which accounts for about a third of all delegates. This is nuts and bolts kind of stuff and the progressive grassroots is really thinking this through. Despite the pie fight primary, I'm optimistic about being a Democrat. I think the dinosaurs' time has passed. A new era is dawning.
-
Who Do You Want To "Own" Your Candidate?
http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObj...Who Do You Want To "Own" Your Candidate? By Kyle E. Moore | March 27, 2008 The big money people behind Hillary Clinton are apparently not very thrilled with Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi, who recently said that Super Delegates should not overturn the pledged delegate leader for the nomination, received a letter from top Clinton donors admonishing the Speaker and asking her to “clarify” her statement, and stay out of the fight. While the letter itself is pretty tame, it’s difficult not to interpret the underlying subtext to read, “We paid for this party, do our will.” Greg Sargent has the full 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 What seems particularly disturbing to me, though, is not merely the attempt to extort Super Delegate support with Democrat cash cow money, but the attempt to strong arm over pledged delegates. Remember, pledged delegates, by Democratic party rules, can change their vote as well, no one is denying this. But to even come close to actually doing such a thing outside an honest to goodness brokered convention is destructive and suicidal. If we’re talking about the potential for Super Delegates to break the party by overturning the pledged delegate leader, imagine the pandemonium that stealing pledged delegates would cause. What makes this different, though, from the rest of the Clinton campaign’s pleas to try and make the delegate hunt an anything goes game is that this is not coming from her campaign directly, but instead as a near extortion threat from her most high powered donors. And just who are these people? As Jon Aravosis points out, about a third of them were overnighters at the Lincoln bedroom during the Clinton Administration, and Matt Stoller points out that seven were heavy donors for Joe Lieberman during his 2006 run as an independent. We also learn that Chris Korge is a Miami based lobbyist to the aviation industry, while Matthew Yglesias reported last year that media mogul and major telecom player, Haim Saban, is a neoconservative leading donor who was particularly generous to Democrats back in 2001 and 2002 when many supported going to war with Iraq. Sim Farar, Hassan Nemazee, also were given plum appointments by the Clinton administrations (or were at least nominated) while Robert Johnson, as I’m sure you all remember, was the high level Clinton surrogate who attacked Obama over drug use and implied that he might have been a drug dealer. Kos diarist, Slinkerwink, did the quick math and discovered that these people have given almost $26 million to the DCCC. What I find particularly interesting, though, is a contrast between these high powered donors, and the well over a million small sum donors that Obama brings to the table, and the fact that they have allowed Obama to outstrip Hillary in fundraising the whole time through. It kind of makes you want to ask the question, who do you want funding your candidate? The few powerful people who are using extortion to get their way, or us? Who Do You Want To Own Your Candidate? » Comments from Left Field Tags: Donors, Pledged Delegates, US Politics, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton, Hillary For President NOT, Barack Obama, Obama For President, Democratic National Party, Republicans For Obama, Election 2008, Super Delegates, Politics, Hillary Clinton Lies, Bill Clinton, NAFTA, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Political Extortion
-
Mike Lux: New Petition Backs Up Pelosi On Superdelegates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/new-petition-backs-up...Cross-Posted at OpenLeft.com. Today, OpenLeft.com and MoveOn.org are co-sponsoring a new petition to Nancy Pelosi, supporting her position on superdelegates and telling her that we'll back her up when she is threatened. Matt Stoller noted yesterday a letter that 20 major donors and raisers to Hillary and other Democratic Party causes sent to Pelosi, upbraiding her for saying that voters ought to actually determine the election. Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with donors stating their opinion about this issue, and I don't blame them for doing it. I'm sure that the Clinton campaign asked them to send the letter, and they are loyal partisans for Hillary, so they did what they were asked to do. But I also think that the millions of us who are smaller donors to this party, who give through MoveOn.org and blogs and ActBlue, should have an equal voice on the important issues with the big dog donors, and we believe that the candidate who wins this election ought to be given the nomination. If the donors and raisers who signed this letter plan to take their money away from the DCCC, that would be a terrible thing, and if that's what they are implying with this letter, shame on them and on the Clinton campaign for encouraging that kind of threat. But, if they do take their money away, I believe those of us signing this petition can more than make up the difference through our collective efforts. More importantly, it will be up to us to make sure that the actions of a few do not change the course that Speaker Pelosi and our House members have been fighting for. Please sign the petition here. Also, here is the text to MoveOn.org's email.
-
http://www.alternet.org/module/email/?storyID=80613&type=blo...
Share and save this post: Got a tip for a post?: Email us | Anonymous form Get PEEK in your mailbox! New Petition Backs Up Pelosi's Position on Superdelegates Posted by Mike Lux, Open Left on March 27, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Today, OpenLeft.com and MoveOn.org are co-sponsoring a new petition to Nancy Pelosi, supporting her position on superdelegates and telling her that we'll back her up when she is threatened. Matt noted yesterday a letter that 20 major donors and raisers to Hillary and other Democratic Party causes sent to Pelosi, upbraiding her for saying that voters ought to actually determine the election. Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with donors stating their opinion about this issue, and I don't blame them for doing it. I'm sure that the Clinton campaign asked them to send the letter, and they are loyal partisans for Hillary, so they did what they were asked to do. But I also think that the millions of us who are smaller donors to this party, who give through MoveOn.org and blogs and ActBlue, should have an equal voice on the important issues with the big dog donors, and we believe that the candidate who wins this election ought to be given the nomination. If the donors and raisers who signed this letter plan to take their money away from the DCCC, that would be a terrible thing, and if that's what they are implying with this letter, shame on them and on the Clinton campaign for encouraging that kind of threat. But, if they do take their money away, I believe those of us signing this petition can more than make up the difference through our collective efforts. More importantly, it will be up to us to make sure that the actions of a few do not change the course that Speaker Pelosi and our House members have been fighting for. Please sign the petition here. AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own. AlterNet Home » Post Tools:
-
Liebercrats?
http://blogrevolution.com//archives/2008/03/27/3456761.htmlThe donors threatening Nancy Pelosi are listed below. I bolded the ones who contributed to Joe Lieberman's campaign for Senate in 2006, when he won reelection as an independent. 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 ... Adding that Haim Saban is the fiscal sponsor of extreme right-wing hawk Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution and Lasry was a Bush donor. ... http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4803
More rising blog posts
More rising news stories
-
Entertainment »
New Sites Make It Easier to Spy on Friends -
Business »
Carlyle to Invest in China Province -
Lifestyle »
U.S.: Wind could meet 20% of electricity needs -
Politics »
Cuomo pushes Clinton-Obama joint ticket -
Sports »
Win-now focus in Cincy could mean heavy action -
Technology »
Craigslist sues eBay, alleges corporate spy plan
Recent posts from Open Left
-
May 13th Election Results Thread
19 minutes ago -
Merkley-Novick: The Activist Versus the Politician
2 hours ago -
Obama As A Reflection Of The Current Incarnation Of The Progressive Movement
2 hours ago
