Today a group of top HRC donors sent a 'private letter' to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today, according to The Page and Talking Points Memo, taking Pelosi to task for her recent comments regarding the role of superdelegates.
According to the fatcats/bigwigs/moneyhonies...
"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."
Okay...so far so good...tell me more...
"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."
Hmm...already running into some problems re: math, probability, remaining delegates. But, I'm still listening....
"Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes...and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard."
Sounds reasonable....no one is denying this, concerns about the tone of the campaign notwithstanding....go on....
"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:"
Now, here's where you begin to lose me. Let's get to the meat and potatoes of this:
"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...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."
So, riddle me this? How come the consideration of the aforementioned factors cannot lead back to the pledged delegate/popular vote/states won leader? And, how about this? Can independeent consideration of the criteria lead only to one candidate? Does it sound to you guys, too, that HRC's sugarmamas and daddies want Pelosi and other party leaders to pipe down so that the voters can finish going through the charade of voting before being overruled by super delegates, considering likely future outcomes? Am I misreading? Did they
"misspeak"?
And in conclusion:
"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."
Not too subtle, ¿verdad?
It's my first diary; here's hoping I did something right! Suggestions are welcome :)
Here's the link to the letter: