Clinton High-Rollers Threaten Pelosi and DCCC

A mild chastisement or an extortion threat?

A group of well-heeled Hillary Clinton supporters did not take too kindly to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's thoughts on the role of SuperDelegates™ and "so-called pledged delegates."

This past Sunday, Pelosi told ABC News, "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party,". But just ten days earlier, Pelosi told The Hill:

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

Armed with this inconsistency and the former statement's appearance of leaning toward Obama, these heavy donors to Clinton and the DCCC fired off this letter, subtly reminding the third-in-line for the presidency where the money comes from:

(via TPM's Election Central)

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.

[...]

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.

(emphasis mine)

Now let's put aside Clinton's own duality of thought historically on the role of delegates. The apparent new talking point that the Clinton campaign is slipping in the discussion is bolded above. While the donors and Clinton are correct in stating that the pledged delegates are not legally bound in any way to vote for the candidate that their state, county and local meetups picked them for, what other reason would we pick delegates for candidates if they would just leave the reservation based on whim or fancy or whoever is paying them more attention at the time? You have to remember that the pledged delegates are picked for their loyalty by the candidates - not the local Dem machine.

By trying to change the perception of reality regarding pledged delegates, the Clinton camp is looking to muddy the waters of public opinion. The same public who, if they even voted, probably is not engaged enough in the process to
know how it really works.

And how about the balls on this bunch threatening the Speaker of the House? I hope Pelosi comes back and tells them where to donate their cash. My friend GottaLaff has a great rundown on the signer's of this horsehead on the pillow here.