Or maybe not, yep the Supers in Congress are DCCC but they also depend on DCCC money.  Maybe this is a veiled threat to them all.

Makes me want to leave the party, frankly. K-street Republicanism isn't bad enough, we need our own damned party members publicly reminding elected representatives and candidates they are bought and paid for, and that those in the party who actually have to stretch a bit to donate fifty or a hundred bucks to the part don't count for sh**.  If Clinton thinks this will incline me to support her with money in the general, should she regrettably succeed, she's in la la land.

I'm not badly off by any means, but the truly well off  with their influence buying make me ill.

The campaign has been told to throw everything they have and Hillary continues to work hard. This is just another incompetent gizmo, perhaps a sign of a failing and financially just about bankrupt campaign. These guys can raise money, but they and everyone they know is at their limit, which is why she has so much dough for the general election. The Clinton Campaign is financially(morally, some would say) bankrupt.

Time for somebody to pull the lever on the trap door, before we all get hurt. Hillary is damaging herself and so is Bill. They are damaging the man who appears to be our presumptive nominee. This is not good for those of us who care about oh, just everything and everybody. She will not quit. Not until something powerful happens. I believe, and I mean this not as a partisan statement, that Bill Richardson did the right thing and acted with courage. We need to see more courage on the part of party leaders, and its not up to Howard Dean to face down Ms. Clinton. In that contest, he loses. Please, Demoractic Party Leaders if you read this blog, Please pull the plug. Big Time. Quick.

It's a shakedown, of course. I agree with sabatia that Richardson acted out of principle [not for 30 pieces of silver!], and I want to see that kind of principle in superdelegates whose candidacies I fund. Is that a shakedown? I don't know. Am I bad? The Al Franken people have been calling me for $ and he's a superdelegate whose state went for Obama yet he hasn't endorsed. Possibly out of fear of Clinton supporting donors, but who knows? Am I as bad as they are if I tell him that I'm not tossing him another penny until he endorses Obama?

They weren't thinking.  They are just guys and gals used to getting their ways... so they thought it was fair game to same... play it our way or we will take our marbles and go home and then you'll be sorry.

By the way have any of you bloggers/chatters on this site seen the Willy Wonka scene of the little girl throwing a temper tantrum because she can't have a golden egg interspersed with commentsd from Hillary that sound just like... so get your heads out of this high brow stuff and take a look at what the kids are putting together.  It's on YouTube and on the DailyKos posted there on an article on this same issue.  Also look at the dirt that the kids dug up on these donors.  Not all a savory crew.

I've never thought much of Nancy Pelosi.  But in this instance, I had to like her for saying, "Back of, bastards."

She told them where they could stick their implied threat.  And pretty much called that brassy bluff.

These guys have been giving their money all along to buy something from the Democratic Party.  What ever it is, they're still going to be in the market for it.  Whether Nancy is plays Hillary's tune or not.

You guys are always talking about how nasty the GOP is.  For for raw, brass-knuckled, make no bones about what the deal really is politics, stay tuned to the Democratic Party.

the missing 'f'.  Uh, it would have been more effective if Nancy had said, "Back OFF, bastards."

"Back of, bastards" would have just had them looking behind themselves.

Chan, I actually think "Back of, bastards" is a great line. It's the new "The Bart, the." I'm gonna find a way to work it into conversation this weekend.

Anyway, since the threat to defund Democratic congressional campaigns is an obvious bluff -- a bunch of influence-peddlers threaten to stop paying the people who have the most important influence? yeah, right -- is there any chance this is a veiled demonstration that Hillary has the financial backing to stay in the race as an "Independent Democrat" like Lieberman if she loses the actual nomination? Not saying she would do such a thing -- though I'm certain she would if she could -- but merely raising the implicit threat as yet another reason why she must be given the nomination?

I think dbhuff's right.  They obviously think they can bully Pelosi; why wouldn't they feel the same way about the superdelegates in general?  They wouldn't be the first people to conclude that members of congress can be influenced by the prospect of getting (or losing) campaign money.

Noam, for what it's worth: I don't have exact quotes but when the letter came up in yesterday's

"It also reinforces the notion that the Clintons will destroy the party to win the WH."

THAT's what they were thinking. Duh.

Annabella2 I want a LINK. I am lazy. Thank you.

Rhub, your independent run theory is interesting but seems highly unlikely.  For one thing, it would pretty much guarantee that McCain wins the pluarlity and the presidency.

It would also make her anathema in the Party to a far greater degree than Lieberman is.

Why does this surprise anyone?  Doesn't anyone remember how the Lincoln bedroom was sold out to the biggest donors by the night?  The Clintons have proven they will do anything they have to, to get whatever it is they want.  The question people shoud be asking is JUST HOW FAR are Bill and Hillary willing to sink down to attain the White House for her?  It's like a Limbo Dance for them, and the bar is getting lower and lower ...