"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"
They go on to articulate why superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their decision on who to support.
"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."
Which is code for "we don't care how many votes Obama has, we still don't think he'll win the general election."
And this lays it on the line: "We have been strong supporters of the DCCC." Hint, hint, do what we want, or we'll make big donations to the local museum instead of the Democrats.
I can appreciate people playing hardball. I have no problem with people with money using their money to make their voices heard. Hey, it's their money, they can do what they want with it. If I ever have oodles of money, I have every intention of doing the same thing. You write large checks, you get to go to great parties. I'm glad people with this kind of cash are on my side. Of course, I'm also very much in favor of transparency when they do. But everyone involved put their name on the letter, so they're upfront. That's all to the good.
But judging from the reactions at TPM, this could seriously backfire with the base. The word "extortion" appears several times. Guess what? The Democratic party is allegedly the party of the little guy. Guess what else? The little guys don't like being pushed around by the big guys. Or the big girls.
And guess what else? Nancy Pelosi is a big girl, too. She can take care of herself. She can also read the handwriting on the wall.