Clinton backers scold Pelosi on superdelegate comment

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nearly 20 high-profile Hillary Clinton backers strongly criticized Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday over her recent suggestion that Democratic party superdelegates should not overturn the pledged delegate outcome at the party's convention this August.

In a letter to the House Speaker dated Wednesday, the backers said that position is at odds with the party's original intent on what the role of superdelegates should be.

"Superdelegates, 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," the backers wrote.

"Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination," they also said. "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."

In an ABC interview earlier this month, Pelosi said it was her belief whichever candidate ended the round a primaries with the pledged-delegate lead should be awarded the Democratic nomination by the superdelegates. That argument would benefit 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.



Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

---

Anybody have a list of these high-profile Clinton backers?

I find it both curious and concerning that said backers mention looking to the "full panoply of factors" in considering the party's strongest nominee, while not even mentioning the importance that we the voters should play in the process.

In the end, are they advocating an elite group of chosen party leaders decide what is best vs the collective will of the Democratic electorate? I'd say yes.

Last time I checked, this was a democracy. Does this same group of concerned backers fathom the damage that would happen to the Dem party at large, with new voters, and on the convention floor in Denver if this were to happen? Their decision would be rendered moot because there would be no party left.

a repeat of the 1992 election?

"In the end, are they advocating an elite group of chosen party leaders decide what is best vs the collective will of the Democratic electorate? I'd say yes."

That's exactly why we have super delegates. Go do some homework to understand super delegates.

I'm not questioning the purpose of SD's - I understand that, I'm questioning the method.

I really do not think it is an over exaggeration to suggest that if Hillary were to be appointed by the SD's on a vote which over-rode the will of the pledged delegates and the popular vote, at best the party would be left in chaos; at worst, it would be torn apart to such a degree that many voters would walk away from the party in disgust.

We would lose the GE and very possibly, lose our majority on The Hill.

and decide who they think is our best candidate we'll lose the GE because Obama supporters will take their ball and go home? What about those that walk away from the party in disgust because Obama is the candidate? It can be played both ways IMO. And I don't think having the super delegates do what they are SUPPOSED to do will bring chaos to the party.

One leaves the perception that We The People decided the nominee, the other is that party leaders decided the nominee.

One seems fair and representative, the other seems fixed.

We can agree to disagree on the effects of said outcome.

I'm convinced it would tear the party apart!

But it's just conjecture, nobody really knows...

The big difference - and it IS a big difference - is that the Hillary scenario means overturning the will of the electorate. The party would destroy itself from within.

are new to the party. Losing them would be very sad for the democratic party, and unfortunately a lot of the Clinton supporters are close to if not indistinguishable (re:Texas) from republicans.

She's saying they can all vote for whoever has the strongest argument at the convention, popular vote be damned.

I can't believe they are going there.

You mean kind of like this?:



:sarcasm:

Assuming this drags on, how will you feel if Obama's shine has "faded" somewhat by convention time? It surely will, you know. In fact, it has already started.

Must the party then be "stuck" with an unelectable candidate just because that person, who happens to be slightly ahead in pledged delegate count, once used to be popular?

This is the true role of super delegates, and you should be glad it is.

Also, this is a byproduct of having such a long primary season.

We did a good job electing presidents before that.

As an aside, SD's are approximately 20% of the total delegate count. Way too many and it leaves us with the prospect of a few deciding the outcome for the many. Remember the SCOTUS in 2000? The rage from Dems would be equal or greater if a few (yet again) decided a nominee.

BTW, I see no signs of an Obama fade. I do see plenty of signs that this party is suffering from battle fatigue generated by all the damn infighting. All the while, McBush rests up his war mongering ass and is removed from the political battlefield.

Do these folks want this to rage on for another 5 months???

Obama has already won on points. He has already won 2X as many states. He is ahead of Clinton by 700,000 + legal votes. If he comes close in PA and does better in NC and IND., this dance needs to end.

Or will we drag the party further into the morass because some folks can't let go of power (or the idea that they won't get more)?

She grows more unelectable with each passing day.

:sarcasm:

What if there is a deadlocked group of delegates in August? What if both candidates are severely damaged by the convention and it looks rather bleak for winning in the fall? If that is the case, do not be surprised if there are other candidates proposed on the second ballot. Many are mentioning Gore will be the name if it goes that route.

...ONE person that could unite the party - Al Gore. He was my original first choice. Yet Al has a say in that and I'd be very surprised if he has boots tall enough to wade through the crap at the convention - or even the desire. He already has a great day job!

Of course, then we get to fight over the VP slot.

that Obama would be offered the VP and Clinton the next available spot on the SCOTUS. But, there has to be continuing difficulties in both campaigns to get to the point. And given Clinton remaining in the campaign of course.

I am a huge Gore supporter but I am hesitant to anticipate this with anything other than huge concern. Our goal has to be the GE in November. We have to win the WH to survive as a country... I firmly believe that this is a make or break year for our country.

Is Obama a liar? Are his supporters?

They sure are, if they insist superdelegates have to vote the way their state did, while at the same time expecting K,K and R to vote for Obama.

Either Obama's folks agree with Hillary about superdelegates, or they are liars, or they are hypocrites.

And, since they don't agree with Hillary, the only possibilities left...

Flipping all the super delegates to vote the way their state did helps Obama right?

The 2 senator's in WA voted for Clinton, you know that right?

Some of her backers leave much to be desired. The worst of the lot as they say. Certainly the worst the DLC has to offer. As proven by this latest attempt to circumvent the will of the people. But then the people simply do not matter to the DLC. Or to the Clintons. Any more than they matter to the Bushes. By hook or by crook she intends to get the nomination. If something happens to Barack Obama, I hope her backers get their wish and his delegates commit to Al Gore along with the superdelegates. And yes, I think the Clintons are capable of anything at this point. Money hungery and power hungry. Both of them. Just like the Bushes. Their adopted family.

The Empress will sit by and say nothing. And if the superdelegates give the nomination, she will smile and continue to enjoy Nero playing his fiddle. Knowing that the tune will not change if Hillary becomes president. Content in knowing her own position is protected.