FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A group of high-profile Hillary Clinton supporters is going after Nancy Pelosi.
Nearly 20 Clinton donors sent a letter to the House Speaker, criticizing her for her recent suggestion that the Democratic superdelegates should not overturn the election results. Pelosi has said it would hurt the Democratic Party if the superdelegates did not support the candidate who ends the race with the most pledged delegates. The Clinton donors want Pelosi to "clarify" her position.
The letter says Pelosi's take is at odds with the party's original intent on the role of superdelegates, those nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who will likely decide the outcome of this race. The Clinton donors insist the superdelegates should look at a whole range of factors to help them decide who will be the party's strongest nominee in November.
Pelosi hasn't endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Her office responded to this letter saying, "As chair of the convention, she is neutral and her position has remained the same throughout the primary season." She also repeated her position that the superdelegates should not "overturn the will of the voters."
The Obama campaign says the letter from Clinton donors is "inappropriate” and calls on the Clinton campaign to "reject the insinuation contained in it."
Here’s my question to you: Do you agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Yes, they should. That's the will of the people and if they get to overturn what voters decide, why bother with the process of primaries and caucuses at all? If the Democratic Party chooses to ignore democracy, many of us Democrats will choose to become independents and ignore the party.
Brian from Los Angeles writes:
Normally I would say yes. But this year, where the rules have been set unreasonably by the DNC in disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters, I would say a resounding no… The superdelegates should take all factors into account in deciding who should be their nominee. Right now, Hillary looks to be the more capable nominee in November than Barack.
Bob from Traverse City, Michigan writes:
After the fine job Ms. Pelosi has done of fulfilling those campaign promises since becoming Speaker of the House, I'm amazed she has the gall to speak in public about anything. Both she and Senator Reid would serve their party well by staying out of sight and out of mind until the election is done!
No. If the superdelegates are supposed to just mirror the pledged delegates, why not just have more pledged delegates, or lower the number of pledged delegates needed to get the nomination to 50% plus 1? Although the concept seems fatally flawed, it appears that the superdelegates were created to save the party from itself by preventing the nomination of a popular, but essentially unelectable/unqualified candidate.
Lisa from Jackson, Tennessee writes:
Of course the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most delegates. It's only fair. If Hillary Clinton had more delegates and popular votes than Obama, this question wouldn't be asked.