|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: Big $ people to Pelosi: We paid for this, so shut up! |
 |
|
This just looks REALLY bad. I bet that a lot of people in the Democratic party are pretty upset over this. It's pretty much contrary to what the party stands for. This really can't be interpreted any other way than people trying to "buy" their way into party control. We all know it happens, but rarely is it so "in your face." It really goes a long way toward showing just how realistic it now seems that Obama will defeat Hillary. That surely has upset a great many people who have probably been giving her and the Democrats a lot of $$ for several years expecting some form of payback once she got back into office.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/27/clinton-backers-dont-sway-pelosi/
| Quote: |
(CNN) � A recent letter from several Hillary Clinton fundraisers to Nancy Pelosi seeking she step back from her contention that superdelegates should support the pledged-delegate leader appears to have had little effect on the House Speaker.
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said late Wednesday the California Democrat stands by her argument that the party's superdelegates would do damage if they go against the will of voters and hand the nomination to the candidate who finished second among those delegates awarded from the round of caucuses and primaries.
"The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters," Daly said. "This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.�
The statement comes a day after nearly 20 high-profile Clinton fundraisers strongly criticized Pelosi for that position, arguing instead that the superdelegates "have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party�s strongest nominee."
The fundraisers, who reminded Pelosi in the letter they have been strong contributors to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also urged the House Speaker 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."
"Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Sens. Clinton or Obama � our two strong candidates � before the convention in August," Daly also said. "That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses."
Pelosi first expressed her stance in an ABC News interview earlier this month � one that benefits Barack Obama, whose current pledged delegate lead of 171 is virtually insurmountable given the party's proportional delegation allocations, even if Clinton were to win each of the remaining 10 primary contests.
An Obama spokesman called the Clinton fundraiser's letter "inappropriate."
Meanwhile, CNN's Ted Barrett reports some Democrats on the Hill are privately complaining the letter was a bad idea.
One senior aide, whose boss actually supports Clinton, said there are �grumblings that pressuring Pelosi was a stupid thing to do,� largely because it appears the donors were �bullying� the speaker.
Another top aide, who works for a senator who is neutral in the race, predicted, �if the misguided effort hasn�t already blown up in their face, mark my words it will. For the life of me how they think they can win this argument with the Speaker is beyond me.� |
Last edited by bassexpander on Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: Re: Big $ people to Pelosi: We paid for this, so shut up! |
|
|
| bassexpander wrote: |
| This just looks REALLY bad. I bet that a lot of people in the Democratic party are pretty upset over this. It's pretty much supposed to be contrary to what the party stand for: |
When, in reality, its what BOTH parties stand for. I hate modern politics, I really do. If these people didn't have the potential to *beep* up my life so badly, I wouldn't care about politics at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
More:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/27/obama.moveon/index.html
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- MoveOn.org, a grassroots powerhouse that supports Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, launched a fundraising drive Thursday to counter Sen. Hillary Clinton's wealthy supporters.
A MoveOn.org campaign for Sen. Barack Obama will spotlight new and old ways of fundraising.
Her supporters have recently argued with their checkbooks that superdelegates should vote their conscience at the Democratic National Convention in August.
MoveOn's drive sets up a face-off that illustrates the widening gap in the Democratic Party between some of its traditional financial backers, many of whom support Clinton, and a Netroots donor base that leans toward Obama.
Twenty of Clinton's major donors sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday that suggested they might rethink their support for the party's congressional efforts this cycle if Pelosi did not alter her publicly stated view that superdelegates should support the party's pledged delegate leader -- a position that would be fatal to Clinton's presidential bid.
"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC," they 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 DCCC -- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- assists the party's House candidates.
A day later, MoveOn.org announced its fundraising drive to demonstrate its support for Pelosi's position
Don't Miss
Poll: Clinton-Obama bickering could hurt ticket
Clinton, Obama go after McCain on economy
Poll: McCain may peel off Obama, Clinton supporters
Pledged delegates up for grabs, Clinton says
"It's the worst kind of insider politics -- billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters," wrote organizers in an e-mail to the group's members. "But when we all pool our resources, together we're stronger than the fat cats. So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute."
Senior advisers to Clinton's campaign denied Thursday the campaign had anything to do with the donors' message to Pelosi.
"We got a heads up that a letter was being sent, but we didn't know what was in it and that was it. Our supporters let us know that they were sending something over," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer on a conference call with reporters.
But he would not repudiate the content of the note.
"I think that the letter speaks for itself," said Singer. "There's clearly a broad feeling among many Democrats, many people who are active in the party, that the role of superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment, to make their decision based on what is best for the party, what is best for the country."
It's a delicate balancing act for the Clinton team. Its success will depend in part on this kind of donor pressure. But the campaign cannot be seen by the majority of the party to be endorsing these actions in any way without risking a major backlash -- a point not lost on the Obama team, which moved quickly to highlight the message's implied threat.
"This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it," said spokesman Bill Burton. "Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Sen. 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."
The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported Thursday that the 20 Clinton donors who signed the letter to Pelosi had collectively contributed nearly $24 million to Democratic candidates and committees over the last decade, including more than $500,000 to Clinton's senate and presidential campaigns and leadership PAC. They have collectively donated less than a tenth of that amount to Obama.
The Pelosi letter is not the first time Democratic heavyweights backing Clinton's run have contacted party officials to press for decisions critical to her campaign and hinted their financial support might depend on the party's positions.
Earlier this month, The New York Times reported Clinton fundraisers in Florida and Michigan were threatening to withhold funds intended for the Democratic National Committee or ask for refunds of previous donations if the party did not seat their state's full delegations at the convention or hold new contests in those states.
Drawing the bulk of superdelegate support regardless of the pledged delegate outcome and seating the Michigan and Florida delegations despite party penalties have both been priorities for the Clinton campaign.
The idea that some Clinton backers might keep their checkbooks closed if she does not win the Democratic nomination comes as a Gallup Poll this week found that 28 percent of her supporters might back presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain this fall if she is not on the ballot.
Pelosi and DNC Chairman Howard Dean have so far defended their positions in the face of the mounting pressure.
"The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters," said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly after the release of this week's letter. "This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes."
Earlier in the month, the national party seemed to take an even tougher tone against these critics.
"While Howard Dean has been working hard to be an honest broker, too many involved have been more concerned with headlines than results," DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton told the Times. "It's never productive to negotiate through the press, but make no mistake, Howard Dean will continue to lead the effort to find a workable solution that's fair and consistent with the rules."
The DNC, however, may be particularly vulnerable if similar threats continue. As both the party's presidential candidates continue to break fundraising records, the national committee stands as the sole Democratic entity at a cash disadvantage to its Republican counterpart, with less than $5 million cash on hand, according to the latest FEC filing -- a fifth of the RNC's war chest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that Pelosi's power-mongering will get her under fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I hate modern politics, I really do |
Is there another era's politics you prefer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that Pelosi's power-mongering will get her under fire. |
She has not showed any sign at all of power mongering. She's been picture perfect on this one, taking the high ground, doing the right thing. You would have to be a stark raving drooling dribbling Hillary-groupy to see this otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that Pelosi's power-mongering will get her under fire. |
She has not showed any sign at all of power mongering. She's been picture perfect on this one, taking the high ground, doing the right thing. You would have to be a stark raving drooling dribbling Hillary-groupy to see this otherwise. |
You would have to be a stark raving drooling dribbling Obama groupy to see things otherwise than I do.
Nice discussion we have here. It took you all of two sentences to launch into ad hominem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Since your accusation of Pelosi's powermongering was completely and utterly baseless on all counts, there was nowhere left for me to go but ad hominem, nothing else explains your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Sinse your accusation of Pelosi's powermongering was completely and utterly baseless on all counts, there was nowhere left for me to go but ad hominem, nothing else explains your position. |
You didn't ASK me to explain my position.
I've never liked Pelosi. She's had a history of putting personal allegiance before compromise from day one.
| Quote: |
| One senior Democratic House member who was leaning toward Hoyer told TIME her vote was entirely dependent on the seriousness of Pelosi's interest in the race. Told that Pelosi was calling around in support of Murtha, the member said her vote was Pelosi's to claim: "The Speaker usually gets what the Speaker wants." Magnified across scores of calls, that kind of attitude could spell trouble for Hoyer. His backers are not happy and claim it will only firm up his support. "Members don't appreciate the strong-arm tactics and are angry that this is happening. That is one more reason they are sticking with Hoyer," says one senior Dem aide. |
| bassexpander wrote: |
| This really can't be interpreted any other way than people trying to "buy" their way into party control. |
I can think of another way.
The Hillary donors have put major money into Hillary's campaign. They have a choice as to whether to contribute to Congressional campaigns. They are asking whether Pelosi wants their Congressional dollars.
They aren't buying their way into party control, they're asking Pelosi to stop interfering in the Presidential race, or they won't contribute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pelosi has not made any statement about the Presidential race that is not objectively true. If she's "interfering", it's just by speaking her mind, on an issue where she happens to be completely correct: this is a delegate race, not a popular vote race, and if the super delegates pick a nominee over the votes of the elected delegates it probably will tear the party apart.
Kuros, I thought you didn't appreciate it when women were told to sit down and shut up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Pelosi has not made any statement about the Presidential race that is not objectively true. |
Poppycock. But we've been through this on other threads. No need to revisit it here.
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros, I thought you didn't appreciate it when women were told to sit down and shut up. |
Huh? Pelosi isn't being told to shut up. She's being warned that she's losing campaign contributions. This thread title is misleading.
But since this site is Camp Obama, I don't expect anyone to see that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
You give me one example, from way back when, and I don't even see that as power mongering, I see that as having an opinion, and a good one. You prefer she changes her mind simply because some other people would find that more convenient? And how does this relate to now?
She is not "meddling" in the election, she is upholding the rules, nothing more nothing less. The case for calling this powermongering is wafer thin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
double post-deleted
Last edited by Czarjorge on Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
As an Obama supporter I would like to point out that Kuros is correct. Pelosi is a bit scummy. In fact, Pelosi and Clinton have far more in common than Obama does with either, barring voting record of course. 
Pelosi's stance as to superdelegates has more to do with her attempt to keep the party together than it does with support for Obama. That and it's in keeping with her trend for selfaggrandizemnet. She's a bad legislator, and if it's possible a worse party leader.
The money bags weighing in to shut her up does make them look terrible, and her better. But take things in context. Rommel tried to assassinate Hitler, but he was still a nazi. Pelosi is old guard, party Democrat and should be taken with a grain of salt, as should all her compatriates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
As an Obama supporter I would like to point out that Kuros is correct. Pelosi is a bit scummy. In fact, Pelosi and Clinton have far more in common than Obama does with either, barring voting record of course.
Pelosi's stance as to superdelegates has more to do with her attempt to keep the party together than it does with support for Obama. That and it's in keeping with her trend for selfaggrandizemnet. She's a bad legislator, and if it's possible a worse party leader. |
I've never been a Speaker Pelosi fan ("impeachment is off the table", WTF?). But I try to avoid getting all Karnak on Hillary, and I'll try to avoid the same pitfall with Pelosi as well.
I can only reiterate: Pelosi is making an objectively true statement about the nature of the Democratic primary (i.e. that it is a delegate vote and not a popular vote, like the electoral college), and voicing her justified opinion that it would be a serious electoral mistake for the super delegates to contravene the votes of the pledged delegates.
Anyone who wants to claim she's doing it because she's pro-Obama needs to establish that she wouldn't be saying the same thing if the candidates' positions were reversed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
